Fred,
> 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?)
My read of this scenario as implementor is that I am to use offlink to
speak to my default router as one example but I cannot assume those
prefixes are on my link. I believe within 2461 this is actually derived
but I have not scanned it but pretty sure. Too much work for this
moment.
>
> I believe this should be clarified somewere, e.g., in the
> IPv6 node reqt's document. The challenge is in specifying
> something that is neither too precise that it precludes
> legitimate functionality nor too broad that it opens the door
> to security holes and/or misconfigurations. In particular, if
> it's not OK for a node to configure an address from an
> advertised prefix with the "L" bit not set we should probably
> say so somewhere and give some rationale.
This is stated. I will go look but it will be days before I come back.
But Thomas knows this spec probably from memory banks :--)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
