Carston, Yes, that is the closure. Not on-link means send traffic to the default router(s). We just do not want language in any document to proliferate that ND has a means to specify a prefix as off-link.
Hemant -----Original Message----- From: Carsten Bormann [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 11:12 AM To: Hemant Singh (shemant) Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Pascal Thubert (pthubert); Jonathan Hui; Samita Chakrabarti; Erik Nordmark; Dave Thaler Subject: Re: off-link model in the 6lowpan talk: draft-ietf-6lowpan-nd-07 On Nov 10, 2009, at 11:05, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote: > ND as specified by RFC 4861 has no means to > signal a prefix as off-link, so the L bit cleared is not signaling > off-link. Right, L=0 does not say "this is off-link", it says "I'm not saying it is on-link". (RFC 4861, section 4.6.2 and 6.3.4.) Now, if nobody ever says it is on-link, it remains off-link. Gruesse, Carsten _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
