Fred,
>
> Right now, all RFC 2462 (section 5.3.3) says is to go ahead and configure
> addresses for prefix options with the "A" bit set; the "L" bit is don't-care.
> But, RFC 2461 (section 6.3.4) says that "a prefix information option with the
> on-link flag set to zero conveys no information concerning on-link determination",
> i.e., you can't tell whether the prefix is on/off link. But, if you configure an
> address from a prefix option with the "L" bit set to zero and assign it to the
> interface the RA arrived on, you are in effect declaring that at least one /128
> chunk of the prefix is on-link. But, I don't see any text in RFC 2461 that says
> you can assume this. This is where I see the ambiguity.
>
Sure, that is what assigning an address to an interface means. Are you saying
that you want to send datagrams that are destined to an address which is
assigned to a local interface, to a router, just because the advertised prefix
from which the address was derived had the "L" bit clear? If one were trying
to implement the "L" bit to a fault, one might consider doing this but it is
hard to see this being the first implementation choice that would occur to
someone. Typically the act of assigning an address to a local interface
implies node-local reachability. If there are implementations that don't
assume this, I have never seen them.
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
