Continuing my "explanations" on prefix option handling. What I had
coded, did basicly for each prefix option something like (for L-bit):
if (L == 1)
AddRoute(prefix, ONLINK);
else
AddRoute(prefix, GATEWAY, router);
That is, I assumed that each router advertising a prefix without
specifying it onlink, also was willing to route to all destinations
matching this prefix.
The plus side of this logic was
- you could have multihomed network where routers come and go
advertising different or same prefixes (WLAN with mobile
client?). Routers can be configured independently (even if one
client sees two routers, routers could be too far away and not see
each other).
The minus is of course, that above implicit gateway route will not
work, if router is not also a default router (if it does not support
"my little extension" :-).
However, yes, I will change my implementation to match the RFC (by
removing the "else" part :-).
> See draft-draves-ipngwg-router-selection-00 for the functionality you
> were thinking about.
Yes, appears that the same effect can be achieved. I'm still unsure
whether a separate option is really needed. Prefix option could just
have a separate bit (instead of my implicit L==0), and preference
bits (maybe into Reserved2).
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
