> 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
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 valid. The value ranges
from 0 to 128. This field allows for variable
> 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
15 matches
Mail list logo
