Dear Hesiam Thanks for your prompt reply.
> => Actually, I think the L flag is a really powerful feature. > Basically when it indicates that a prefix is not on-link > it is informing hosts that they should send their traffic > to the default router. This is useful for the case you mentioned If the purpose of prefixes with L=0 is to inform hosts to send traffic to the default router, why not omit those prefixes altogether from RAs. Host will send the packets destined to unknown prefixes to a default router anyway. > => If it is found that in some deployment cases the L=0 > causes problems, the network admin is free to configure > the routers accordingly and always use on-link prefixes. > This is completely under the control of the admin. I wonder that there may be some wireless links on which admin can't assign on-link prefixes. For example, a link with hidden node problem like 802.11 b ad-hoc mode or bluetooth. > I think Fred Templin sent a question some time ago > on this and Thomas explained how hosts should handle the > case where the L flag is set to zero. We can add this clarification > in the new revision if that helps. Fred Templin raised the issue whether it's possible to advertise a prefix with L=0 and A=1 and Thomas said so. Is this what you have in mind? And I think the prefix with L=0 and A=1 may cause unnoticed address duplication. Best regards JinHyeock D� ���x �������x%��b���z�� �)��ڶ+�E�z�l��i���� bz���j)fj��b��?���
