Hemant and I met this afternoon and he explained the details of what
they've observed, which helped me a lot more than the discussion in the
WG meeting.
Based on this I think I understand the root cause of why some
implementors get some things wrong.
The IPv6 subnet model is quite different than IPv4 in that it is
optional to have any subnet prefix. In IPv4 there is always a subnet
prefix associated an IP address (at least on anything but a
point-to-point link).
While one can *infer* this from all of the text in RFC 4861, it might
make sense to have an RFC which
- makes this difference very explicit
- gives examples of some implementation mistakes we've seen as a result
I don't think tweaking the text in RFC 4861 will necessarily help, since
it gets lost in the volume of that RFC.
I told Hemant I'll help to make sure that high-level explanatory text is
included.
Erik
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
