The problem is - without something like this, it's impossible to ever expire a prefix or make sure that something is, indeed, off-link.
- Wes -----Original Message----- From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Christian Huitema Sent: Thursday, December 24, 2009 4:15 PM To: Hemant Singh (shemant); Thomas Narten Cc: Erik Nordmark; IPv6 Maintenance WG Subject: Comments on draft-ietf-6man-subnet-model-07 This draft addresses a clear failure mode: a host believes that a destination is on-link when in fact it is not, resulting in failure to communicate. That's good. However, I have some doubts about one of the recommendations: 2. In the absence of other sources of on-link information, including Redirects, if the RA advertises a prefix with the on-link(L) bit set and later the Valid Lifetime expires, the host MUST then consider addresses of the prefix to be off-link, as specified by the PIO paragraph of section 6.3.4 of [RFC4861]. Strictly implemented, this means that if a local router fails, then hosts on the same link will stop communicating, when in fact they should. In other words, this rules introduce fate sharing between local connections and the local router. I don't think this fate sharing is desirable. -- Christian Huitema -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
