At Wed, 18 Feb 2009 21:54:37 +0100, Alexandru Petrescu <[email protected]> wrote:
> > - prefix P::/56 with L=1, A=0, and > > - prefix P::/64 with L=0, A=1 > > > > if the receiving host is fully compliant with RFC4861 and 4862. > > Excuse my ignorance but I don't see why putting two prefixes in the RA > when one is sufficient with A=1 and L=1. Because the specification is written that way. From a pure technical point of view, we could have introduced a new rule, e.g., "if the length of a prefix with A=1 is less than 128 - length of IID, the host should continue configuring an address with the prefix and the IID, filling in the remaining bits with 0". My whole point is that it's not worth the time and process overhead to consider introducing such an additional extension at this stage without a strong reason, and 'we could do it, why not' is (IMO) way too weak a reason. --- JINMEI, Tatuya Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
