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

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





Soliman Hesham wrote:

> >  I wish we clarify the above. The prefixes with L=0 makes DNA work 
> > complicated. Though they are troublesome, I am afriad that, 
> > in wireless
> > environment, we can't avoid them.
>
>=> 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 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.
>

Thomas' explaination did indeed clear my confusion on this subject.
A clarification in the new revision would seem to put the issue to
rest, IMHO.

Fred
ftemplin@iprg.nokia.com

>If there are other scenarios where this is problematic
>please send them to the list.
>
>Thanks,
>Hesham
>
> > 
> > Best regards
> > 
> > JinHyeock
> > 
> > 
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>ipv6@ietf.org
>Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>  
>



--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------