Thanks Jinmei,
But there is still the conflict between the address architecture
and ND at the moment. It may not affect the actual ND spec
but it seems like a confusing contradiction for someone trying to
understand how the ADDRARCH and ND specs fit together.
The was also m
> However, I think the receiving node should still consider the prefix
> as valid in terms of ND (i.e., consider it as "on-link") and modify
> the next-hop determination accordingly.
>
> The questions are:
>
> 1. is this a correct understanding of the intention of RFC2461?
> 2. if yes, is this a
Catching up an old topic...
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 07:26:05 -0500,
> Soliman Hesham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> What should a node do upon reception of a prefix option with the prefix
> length set to a value >64?
> The issue can be stated more accurately to say:
> What should a host do u
> From: Soliman Hesham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> What should a node do upon reception of a prefix option with the prefix
> length set to a value >64?
...
> 4. Leave this field as is and design a mechanism that
> allows the host to form an address based on the
> length of the interface identifier (i.e
