>>>>> On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 02:36:14 +0000,
>>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> What is the handling for the case where a prefix's preferred lifetime
> exceeds the valid lifetime?
> Suggestion: Specify that a router MUST NOT send a prefix option
> containing preferred lifetime > valid lifetime
> Current text in Preferred Lifetime description (sec 4.2):
> Preferred Lifetime
> 32-bit unsigned integer. The length of time in
> seconds (relative to the time the packet is sent)
> that addresses generated from the prefix via
> stateless address autoconfiguration remain
> preferred [ADDRCONF]. A value of all one bits
> (0xffffffff) represents infinity. See [ADDRCONF].
> Note that the value of this field MUST NOT exceed
> the Valid Lifetime field to avoid preferring
> addresses that are no longer valid.
Let me check: is this your suggested text in rfc2461bis?
(BTW: I guess you meant "sec 4.6.2", not "sec 4.2")
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
