JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 a écrit :
At Mon, 23 Feb 2009 17:30:38 +0100,
Alexandru Petrescu <[email protected]> wrote:
But this means I couldn't accommodate the situation with two distinct
PIO prefixes in the RA either (/48 A=0 L=1, /64 A=1 L=0), because the
/48 L=1 prefix would still fool Y to believe 2001:db8:1111:cc00::2 were
on link.
In this case A (or B) normally only advertises 2001:db8:1111::/64 with
L=1 and A=1, and everything works just fine. The example I gave was
to show that one of your suggested justification for the "hypothetical
extension" doesn't work in some cases.
YEs, it wouldn't work, and for the same reason putting /48 with L=1
would break the same example that the hypotethical extension breaks.
Alex
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
