Suresh, At least our drafts do not ask for a new off-link flag. Without a new off-link flag your scenario will have to go with (a). But do note, aggregation routers do not send Redirects. So the scenario below cannot be even supported on aggregation routers.
Hemant -----Original Message----- From: Suresh Krishnan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 11:01 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Off-link and on-link Hi Hesham/Dave/Erik, I am not taking a stand on whether an explicit off-link flag is necessary/useful or not, but I have encountered a scenario where the existing algorithm specified in RFC4861 does not work very well. Let's say a router wants to signal to the clients that 2001:dead:beef::/48 is on-link except for 2001:dead:beef:abcd::/64 that is off-link. How would it go about describing this? I see two ways a) Advertise the /48 with L=0 and send redirects for all addresses not on the /64 b) Advertise the /48 with L=1 and the /64 with Q(the new off-link flag)=0 I see b) as being more efficient than a) P.S: I do not think that this scenario is very likely, just possible. Cheers Suresh -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
