On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 08:45:12AM -0400, Thomas Narten wrote: > Correct, and that is the motivation for > draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-subnet-model-02.txt. See Section 3, for example.
That draft completely misses the original point. This isn't a question of whether "ifconfig inet6 2001:db8::1/64" 'should be permissible' so far as the IETF is concerned. This is a question of what the failure model should be when DHCPv6 succeeds but the link's router(s) are unavailable. Generally speaking, it is astonishing to the user for the model to be a complete failure of all communications - not just those to external nodes. Consequently, implementations choose to provide a prefix with the address. It isn't because "they don't understand the subnet model." They understand, and it is broken. -- Ash bugud-gul durbatuluk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul. Why settle for the lesser evil? https://secure.isc.org/store/t-shirt/ -- David W. Hankins "If you don't do it right the first time, Software Engineer you'll just have to do it again." Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. -- Jack T. Hankins
pgpnKUjMat67Z.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
