Re: (resend) [rfc2462bis] prefix length check for existing addresses

[JINMEI Tatuya / $B?@L@x#:H(B <jinmei@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>>>>> On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 11:19:24 -0700 (PDT), 
>>>>> Erik Nordmark <Erik.Nordmark@sun.com> said:

>> It seems to me that this specification allows (e.g.,) the prefix
>> "::/0" to update the lifetimes all existing addresses (which may even
>> include link-local addresses), since ::/0 matches any addresses.
>> 
>> Is this the intended behavior? I believe not, and if not, shouldn't
>> the specification be clearer to avoid this case? I believe it should.

> I don't think this was the intent, thus it makes sense to clarify the
> specification.

> My take in this is that there is basically two levels:
> 1. Maintaining the set of addrconf prefixes based on what is received
>    in router advertisements and timeouts.
> 2. Configure addresses from those prefixes (which have a lifetime based
>    on the lifetime of the underlying prefix).
> I don't know if it makes sense to structure the text that way.

> BTW: Is there a separate issue about the interaction of the lifetime
> in the advertised prefixes and addresses that are not configured
> using stateless? (For instance, would these lifetimes affect
> the addresses configured manually or with DHCP?)

As I stated in a previous message (the latest one in this thread),
there *was* an issue in RFC2462 but rfc2462bis would be able to avoid
it since rfc2462bis will concentrate on the stateless part of the
address configuration (as a result of clarifying the M/O flags).

>> e) If the prefix advertised does not match the prefix of an address
>> already in the list, make a new address from the prefix
>> f) If the prefix advertised does match the prefix of an address
>> already in the list, update the lifetimes of the address

> I still think this is underspecified since you haven't defined
> what "match the prefix" means. You'd need to state that two prefixes
> match when the length of the prefixes is identical and the "length"
> first bits are identical.
> Otherwise folks might read this the same as "prefix advertised
> matches an address"

I first would like to know your opinion, if any, on my latest question
(in the separate message).  If we choose option 1 (i.e., basically do
nothing on this), we still might want to clarify what "match the
prefix" means to avoid possible confusion.

Thanks,

					JINMEI, Tatuya
					Communication Platform Lab.
					Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
					jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp

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