[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: RFC 2461- issue list: Prefixes with L=0



Dear Hesiam

Thanks for your prompt reply. 

> => Actually, I think the L flag is a really powerful feature.
> Basically when it indicates that a prefix is not on-link
> it is informing hosts that they should send their traffic
> to the default router. This is useful for the case you mentioned

If the purpose of prefixes with L=0 is to inform hosts to send traffic 
to the default router, why not omit those prefixes altogether from 
RAs. Host will send the packets destined to unknown prefixes to a 
default router anyway.  
 
> => If it is found that in some deployment cases the L=0 
> causes problems, the network admin is free to configure
> the routers accordingly and always use on-link prefixes.
> This is completely under the control of the admin. 

I wonder that there may be some wireless links on which admin can't 
assign on-link prefixes. For example, a link with hidden node problem 
like 802.11 b ad-hoc mode or bluetooth.  

> I think Fred Templin sent a question some time ago
> on this and Thomas explained how hosts should handle the
> case where the L flag is set to zero. We can add this clarification
> in the new revision if that helps.
 
Fred Templin raised the issue whether it's possible to advertise a prefix 
with L=0 and A=1 and Thomas said so. Is this what you have in mind? 
And I think the prefix with L=0 and A=1 may cause unnoticed address 
duplication. 

Best regards

JinHyeock

 D Šx x%bz)ڶ+Ezli
bzj)fjb?