Hi Fred. > The main message I am getting is that the "L" bit is a don't-care from > the standpoint of RFC 2462 section 5.5, and I agree that that point needs no > further clarification. But, I'm still a bit uncertain on the following point:
> Thomas Narten wrote: > > This question applies to any address a node autoconfigures, regardless > > of the setting of the L-bit. The scope of the advertisement of course > > applies to the interface on which it receives. > When you say that the scope of the advertisement applies to the interface > on which it receives, are you also implying that the scope of any addresses > autoconfigured from prefixes received in the advertisement apply to the > interface as well - regardless of the state of the "L" bit? Yes. > Asked another > way, when a prefix option has the "A" bit set and the "L" bit NOT set, > should the address autoconfigured from the prefix be: a) assigned to the > receiving interface, Yes > b) treated as a node_ID independent of any of the node's interfaces, No. > c) implementor's-choice? No. What wording would lead you to think to answer yes to b) or c)? I'm also puzzled that you would think that doing b) would make sense. In most cases, it would not. The different interfaces will likely connect to different links that have different subnet prefixes assigned to them. It wouldn't make sense to assign an address on an interface that the routers (or hosts) on that link wouldn't know were on that link. Thomas -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
