> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 11:49:59 -0700 (PDT),
> Erik Nordmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> I have one last question. RFC2462 says just "an address already in
>> the list" in the case of no identical (or matched) prefix while it
>> says "an *autoconfigured* address in the list" in the case
> I have one last question. RFC2462 says just "an address already in
> the list" in the case of no identical (or matched) prefix while it
> says "an *autoconfigured* address in the list" in the case where there
> is an identical prefix. Does the former mean all addresses including
> stateless-, s
> On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 07:20:06 -0700 (PDT),
> Erik Nordmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> I first would like to know your opinion, if any, on my latest question
>> (in the separate message). If we choose option 1 (i.e., basically do
>> nothing on this), we still might want to clarify what
> I first would like to know your opinion, if any, on my latest question
> (in the separate message). If we choose option 1 (i.e., basically do
> nothing on this), we still might want to clarify what "match the
> prefix" means to avoid possible confusion.
I think we should clarify this. The word
> On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 11:19:24 -0700 (PDT),
> Erik Nordmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> It seems to me that this specification allows (e.g.,) the prefix
>> "::/0" to update the lifetimes all existing addresses (which may even
>> include link-local addresses), since ::/0 matches any addres
> It seems to me that this specification allows (e.g.,) the prefix
> "::/0" to update the lifetimes all existing addresses (which may even
> include link-local addresses), since ::/0 matches any addresses.
>
> Is this the intended behavior? I believe not, and if not, shouldn't
> the specification
> On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 10:07:41 +0900,
> JINMEI Tatuya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> It seems to me that this specification allows (e.g.,) the prefix
> "::/0" to update the lifetimes all existing addresses (which may even
> include link-local addresses), since ::/0 matches any addresses.
>
> On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 08:38:19 +0300 (EEST),
> Pekka Savola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Assuming I'm correct for both the questions, I'd like to propose to
>> revise the logic in Section 5.5.3 as follows:
>>
>> a) Check for the Autonomous flag
>> b) Ignore the link-local prefix
>> c) Che
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, JINMEI Tatuya / [ISO-2022-JP] [EMAIL PROTECTED]@C#:H wrote:
> Assuming I'm correct for both the questions, I'd like to propose to
> revise the logic in Section 5.5.3 as follows:
>
> a) Check for the Autonomous flag
> b) Ignore the link-local prefix
> c) Check for the case of
(Hmm, I thought I sent this via the issue tracker, but I seem to have
failed...so I'm resending it my local mailer).
I've just noticed another minor issue on RFC2462.
In short, the issue is it's not clear in RFC2462 whether we should
check the advertised prefix length when updating the lifetimes
10 matches
Mail list logo
