Note that the value of this field MUST NOT exceed the Valid
>>Lifetime field to avoid preferring addresses that are no longer valid.]
>>
>>Also, a host is totally legal to use just the Valid Lifetime
>>and thus I'd repeat your test with changing of Valid Lifetime
ing addresses that are no longer valid.]
>
>Also, a host is totally legal to use just the Valid Lifetime
>and thus I'd repeat your test with changing of Valid Lifetime
>and see what you see for behavior by the host.
>
>Hemant
>
>-Original Message-
>From: i
Hi Suresh,
Thank you for your comment.
But Windows Vista and 7 are correctly updating preferred lifetime. :-)
(i.e. It conforms to Section 5.5.3 of RFC4862.)
The problem is that Windows Vista and 7 don't restore to "Preferred"
from "Deprecated".
Please see my question.
>Can IPv6 address rest
> avoid preferring addresses that are no longer valid.]
>
>Also, a host is totally legal to use just the Valid Lifetime and thus I'd
>repeat your test with changing of Valid Lifetime and see what you see for
>behavior by the host.
>
>Hemant
>
>-Original Message-
Hi Kawashima-san,
On 11-03-07 08:59 AM, Masanobu Kawashima wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I'd like to ask simple question. :-)
> Can IPv6 address restore to Preferred State from Deprecated state?
> I think it's possible to do. However, there is no clear description
> in RFC4861/4862. Is it written in othe
, 2011 8:59 AM
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Question about IPv6 Address State
Hi All,
I'd like to ask simple question. :-)
Can IPv6 address restore to Preferred State from Deprecated state?
I think it's possible to do. However, there is no clear description
in RFC4861/4862. Is it w
Hi All,
I'd like to ask simple question. :-)
Can IPv6 address restore to Preferred State from Deprecated state?
I think it's possible to do. However, there is no clear description
in RFC4861/4862. Is it written in other RFCs?
I know that one of the weird behavior. Please see the following links
