On Fri, 27 Feb 2004, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
> > I've been thinking about this issue for a while. Currently, I'm not
> > sure if we need to do something in rfc2462bis for this issue.
> (snip)
> > Please someone clarify this point. Then I'll consider what is
> > necessary for rfc2462bis (or whether we need to do something in the
> > first place) for this matter.
>
> i guess it is either:
> - interface ID is always 64 bit, no matter what. addr-arch should be
> simplified and state that interface ID is 64 bit.
> - stateless addrconf (and maybe ND?) is currently defined only for
> unicast prefixes starting with "001", where interface ID is 64 bit.
> stateless addrconf (and maybe ND) for other unicast prefixes is left
> as a homework for readers.
How about:
- stateless address autoconf is only defined when the prefix
is 64 bits. If the received router advertisement has some other
prefix length, don't use the prefix.
I guess this is close to your first assumption -- only, I would
probably not revise addr-arch at all. That's beyond the scope of this
document IMHO.
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
