On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 10:47:06 +0100 (CET) Mikael Abrahamsson <swm...@swm.pp.se> wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Mar 2011, Mark Smith wrote: > > > The PIO isn't to make DHCPv6 work, it is to inform the end-host of what > > destinations are onlink. Here is what RFC5942 says - > > Why does it need destinations on-link? It only needs to know it's IPv6 > address and how to reach the router, nothing more. I don't see any > theoretical or practical MUST requirement for an on-link prefix. > I don't think I said an on-link prefix was required. All I have ever said is that, as per the RFC5942, if you want to have an on-link prefix, you must announce it in a PIO (without the A bit if you don't want it to be used for SLAAC). Steinar gave an example which could imply that wasn't the case, but his example was actually one where an on-link prefix wasn't required. IOW, his example didn't disprove my statement, it only showed that there are some situations where no PIO announced prefix has a use case - where all destinations are required to be considered off-link. > > I'm not quite sure which 4.1 you're referring to. Point 1. of section 4 > > of RFC5942? > > Yes. > > -- > Mikael Abrahamsson email: swm...@swm.pp.se -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
