[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[psg.com #250] Reception of prefix option with prefix length > 64
Folks,
This is now an old issue and no one objected to
the resolution below. In addition, a few people seem
to be against explicitly restricting the prefix to 64
bits in the specification. So I'm closing this
issue with the resolution shown below.
Hesham
> [h.soliman@flarion.com - Tue Jul 20 10:02:35 2004]:
>
> This issue was discussed in some detail.
>
> I've done the following:
>
> - Clarified the prefix length field in 4.6.2
> - Added clarifications to the second last paragraph in
> 6.3.4.
>
> Text in 4.6.2:
>
> Prefix Length 8-bit unsigned integer. The number of leading bits
> in the Prefix that are valid. The value ranges
> from 0 to 128. The prefix length field provides
> necessary information for on-link determination
> (when combined with other flags in the prefix
> option). It also assists with address
> autoconfiguration as specified in [ADDRCONF], for
> which there may be more restrictions on the prefix
> length.
>
>
> Text in 6.3.4:
>
> Stateless address autoconfiguration [ADDRCONF] may in some
> circumstances increase the Valid Lifetime of a prefix or ignore it
> completely in order to prevent a particular denial of service attack.
> However, since the effect of the same denial of service targeted at
> the on-link prefix list is not catastrophic (hosts would send packets
> to a default router and receive a redirect rather than sending
> packets directly to a neighbor) the Neighbor Discovery protocol does
> not impose such a check on the prefix lifetime values. Similarly,
> [ADDRCONF] may impose certain restrictions on the prefix length for
> address configuration purposes. Therefore, the prefix might be
> rejected by [ADDRCONF] implementation in the host. However, the
> prefix length is still valid for on-link determination when
combined
> with other flags in the prefix option.
>
>
> Currently there is no text that limits the prefix length
> to 64 if the A flag is set (as recommended by the IAB).
> I'd like to hear from the WG if this should be added.
>
> Hesham
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------