Narayanan, Vidya wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Templin, Fred L
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006
2:25 PM To: Narayanan, Vidya; marcelo bagnulo braun Cc: James
Kempf; INT Area Subject: RE: [Int-area] IPv6 addressing model,
per-MN subnet prefix,and broadcast domain
I was referring to multicast RAs for purposes of SLAAC. If you
did stateful address configuration and used RAs only to
advertise default
router, that is different.
Its not only about stateful address configuration; unsolicited RAs
with incomplete information can be followed by an RS/RA exchange
where the RA contains prefixes for SLAAC.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by RAs with "incomplete
information". In any case, the above design seems weird to me. For
one, there is no reason a host should send an RS right after it
received an unsolicited RA.
Well, if the router puts a short lifetime in the periodic partial RA
(partial, incomplete would mean only the default router address) then
the host will necessarily do an RS after that lifetime and get an RA
that would contain only prefix (no default router address) with a much
longer lifetime. I think it's implementable.
Further, what you are suggesting is that the unsolicited RA is
different from the RA that follows the RS.
Yes, why not. The contents are different but they concern different
characteristics, why not.
All these sound architecturally strange to me.
Looks to me different too, but not necessarily strange. Why
"architecturally" strange :-) Would it break anything.
Alex
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
