On 2009-02-19 10:38, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote: > 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.
Yes, it seems to me that we have an unwritten consensus to keep RAs rather simple. And we have RFC3633 and as of today, draft-jaehwoon-autoconf-dhcpoption, to convey prefixes using DHCPv6. Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
