Fred,
I have myself been confused by the L bit in the past but I don't think
there is anywhere near as much ambiguity here as you. And, if there is
the node requirements document isn't the place to fix it.
>
> I'm still of the opinion that some ambiguity exists. Namely, if a prefix
> option has the Autonomous flag ("A" bit) set and the on-link flag ("L" bit)
> NOT set, one could infer from reading RFC 2462, section 5.5 that it is OK
> to go ahead and configure an address from the (off-link) prefix as specified
> in 5.5.3 d). But then, which link would one derive an interface identifier
> from in order to form an address? (And, which interface would one assign
> the address to?)
>
It is correct to infer that one should configure an address from a prefix
option with the A bit set and the L bit clear. Is it really necessary to
spell out that the address should be configured on the interface on which
the advertisement was received? What would justify making any other choice?
Tim Hartrick
Mentat Inc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
