This draft addresses a clear failure mode: a host believes that a destination
is on-link when in fact it is not, resulting in failure to communicate. That's
good. However, I have some doubts about one of the recommendations:
2. In the absence of other sources of on-link information, including
Redirects, if the RA advertises a prefix with the on-link(L) bit
set and later the Valid Lifetime expires, the host MUST then
consider addresses of the prefix to be off-link, as specified by
the PIO paragraph of section 6.3.4 of [RFC4861].
Strictly implemented, this means that if a local router fails, then hosts on
the same link will stop communicating, when in fact they should. In other
words, this rules introduce fate sharing between local connections and the
local router. I don't think this fate sharing is desirable.
-- Christian Huitema
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
