Hi Christian, FWIW I don't think that there is problem either. There have however been concerns that this break the IPv6 addressing model, hence my original message asking for opinions.
Thanks for your reply. --julien On Monday 07 August 2006 18:38, Christian Vogt wrote: > Hi Julien, > > I don't think there is a problem. > > If you use the prefix-per-MN case on a broadcast link, what you get > is a link comprising multiple subnets. RFC 3513 explicitly allows > links with multiple prefixes: > > Currently IPv6 continues the IPv4 model that a subnet prefix is > associated with one link. Multiple subnet prefixes may be > assigned to the same link. > > (This is, BTW, the passage that Dave Thaler cites in > [draft-thaler-intarea-multilink-subnet-issues].) > > In the scenario you describe (the one including MNs A, B, and C), > you simply have a link with 3 prefixes. The unusual, but still > legitimate circumstance in this scenario is that the MNs do not see > their neighbors' prefixes. > > Note that a situation where hosts on the same link see different > prefixes may also arise when the link has multiple routers, each > router advertises a different set of prefixes, and no two hosts > receive RAs from the same router due to packet loss. The hosts > will then not be aware of their neighbors' prefixes. Certainly, > this is unlikely to happen, but it may happen. > > Let me know if I have missed something. > > - Christian _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
