Hi James, Just for clarification.
On Thursday 24 August 2006 20:04, James Kempf wrote: > Fred, > > I don't think this quite captures the situation. > > [...] > > Secondly, exactly what is meant by 'L=0' is underspecified by RFC > 2461. I think everyone agrees with 'L=1' means, that the prefix is > only being advertised to nodes that are on this physical link. Any > effort to tighten up the definitoin of 'L=0' is going to need > wider discussion with the ipv6 WG and possibly might impact > RFC2461bis. This draft is currently in AD Evauation:Revised Draft > Needed. > > [...] I wouldn't say that 'L=0' semantic is underspecified. I on the opposite found 2461 to be quite well specified. It says: Note, however, that a Prefix Information option with the on-link flag set to zero conveys no information concerning on-link determination and MUST NOT be interpreted to mean that addresses covered by the prefix are off-link. That is, it doesn't mean that *all* nodes are off-link. Some might, while some might not. But it clearly specifies what the node should do in that case. The default behavior (see Section 5.2) when sending a packet to an address for which no information is known about the on-link status of the address is to forward the packet to a default router; i.e. send packets to the default router. What do you think is underspecified? --julien _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
