> I personally prefer "keep separating" for question A, and I prefer
> allowing any lengths (between 0 and 128) for the length of an
> "on-link" prefix.
I have the same preferences.
Erik
IETF IPv6 working group mailing lis
(B
(B > I admit this can be a discussion on an atypical scenario, and I see
(B > your frustration. However, even if this is related to something
(B > atypical, I believe it's very helpful to clarify the points in
(B > rfc2461bis, since issues regarding prefix lengths have been annoyed
(B >
> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 11:25:03 -0400,
> "Soliman Hesham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I guess I'm confused by something here. The way you make your point
> makes me think that there are two prefixes being advertised, one for on-link
> determination and one for address configuration.
In th
Jinmei,
On Thu, 2004-06-17 at 07:25, JINMEI Tatuya / çæéå wrote:
>
> - the (global) prefix does not start with 000,
> - the A flag is not set, and
> - the L flag is set
>
> Whatever solution we take for this, it won't affect ADDRARCH, since
> it doesn't have any relationship with addressing.
>
Jinmei,
(B
(BI guess I'm confused by something here. The way you make your point
(Bmakes me think that there are two prefixes being advertised, one for on-link
(Bdetermination and one for address configuration. I've questioned the
(Bpracticality
(Bof this before and I think we can say that th
> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 05:07:42 -0400,
> "Soliman Hesham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> The above text seems to assume that the "Prefix Length" in terms of
>> RFC2461 (and its bis) is somehow tied with the address
>> architecture...
>>
>> Again, I'd still like to see a consensus on the as
(B
(B
(B > The above text seems to assume that the "Prefix Length" in terms of
(B > RFC2461 (and its bis) is somehow tied with the address
(B > architecture...
(B >
(B > Again, I'd still like to see a consensus on the assumption itself.
(B
(B=> It's not an assumption it's a fact, more b
> On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 04:05:06 -0400,
> "Soliman Hesham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> So I added one sentence to the description of the prefix
> length. The text now reads:
>Prefix Length 8-bit unsigned integer. The number of leading bits
> in the Prefix that are v
re no comments on the text this issue will be closed.
Hesham
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Behalf Of
> Soliman Hesham
> Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 10:13 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [rfc2461bis] Receiving a
> In that case, the host can configure the on-link prefix but cannot
> configure an address by the stateless autoconfiguration mechanism.
> So, in this case, if the administrator fully understands what they are
> doing, they would not set the "A" flag in the prefix information
> option. Even if th
> On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 09:31:51 -0400,
> "Soliman Hesham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> (I'd personally avoid using the magic number of 64, but anyway)
> => Why? It's a reality, at least for 2462.
Even RFC2462 says the length is "typically" 64 bits, and does not
assume the number as an in
(B > (I'd personally avoid using the magic number of 64, but anyway)
(B
(B=> Why? It's a reality, at least for 2462.
(B
(B >
(B > In that case, the host can configure the on-link prefix but cannot
(B > configure an address by the stateless autoconfiguration mechanism.
(B > So, in this cas
> On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 01:03:36 -0400,
> "Soliman Hesham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Not necessarily an objection, but I'd like you to review my thoughts
>> below (attached), which is mainly for the rfc2462bis work
>> but has some
>> relationship with rfc2461bis.
>>
>> In short, in my
(B > Not necessarily an objection, but I'd like you to review my thoughts
(B > below (attached), which is mainly for the rfc2462bis work
(B > but has some
(B > relationship with rfc2461bis.
(B >
(B > In short, in my interpretation the prefix length for an
(B > on-link prefix
(B > can be
> On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 10:13:24 -0400,
> "Soliman Hesham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> This issue was discussed on the list and in the
> last meeting.
> There were two sub issues:
> 1. How does a host configure an address?
> 2. Inconsistency with ADDRARCH
> We agreed that (1) is out of
This issue was discussed on the list and in the
last meeting.
There were two sub issues:
1. How does a host configure an address?
2. Inconsistency with ADDRARCH
We agreed that (1) is out of scope for 2461bis
and is more relevant for address configuration
mechanisms.
(2) was discussed in the me
16 matches
Mail list logo