I had clarified such RAs in private discussions with various folks
inside and outside Cisco.
Sorry, if I have missed any email that said RA with no PIOs is viewed as
"incorrect". It is a totally correct RA configuration that 2461bis or
even RFC 2461 makes reference to. Now an RA that includes a PI
James - in the abstract, in my opinion the inference is that a prefix
cannot be described as on-link unless it is advertised in a PIO.
Question for the list: is there a functional difference between an RA
that includes a PIO advertising a prefix P with neither the L nor A
bits set (no on-li
Where you configure a mask with an address is an accident of the UI.
Where you use the mask is based on the protocol design. The prefix
length is not used in any way with an address assigned to an
interface. The only reason a mask is specified with an address in
IPv4 is to convey on-link
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
13.92% | 11 | 19.23% | 107242 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
15.19% | 12 | 11.84% |66004 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
11.39% |9 | 11.21% |62505 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
7.59% |6 | 8.18% |455
On 2007-08-17T06:59:56-0700, Templin, Fred L wrote:
>> How can that happen with a DHCPv6 host? RA will always precede DHCPv6
>> transactions because unless the host sees an RA with M bit set the
>> host will not initiate DHCPv6.
>
> That doesn't make much sense; if a node doesn't hear
> RAs, why w
