On Sun, 6 Mar 2011, Mark Smith wrote:
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).
You said:
I don't think that will always work. The PIO is needed to indicate to end-nodes what the onlink prefix(es) are, as per RFC5942.
I interpreted your use of "needed" as "required".
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.
Well, I interpreted your "I don't think that will always work" as saying that you thought what he said wouldn't work in all sitations. What situations were you thinking of that won't work?
As far as I can see, not having an on-link prefix means all traffic will be passing via the router, but that's not the same as "not working", it might just be suboptimal in some deployment scenarios and highly desired in others.
-- 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
