Re: RFC 2461- issue list

[Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr>]

 In your previous mail you wrote:

   > In other words, is your suggestion that we add the support
   > for the R bit in the revised spec?
   
   no R bit. always include the global address configured from the
   prefix instead of just the prefix. the prefix can always be
   obtained using the prefix length field.
   
   it is probably more useful to mobile nodes. but not just MIPv6.
   it is useful whenever a node needs the global address of its
   access router.
   
> I agree, the R bit or an equivalent (which is compatible because
the zero interface ID is reserved for anycast) is very useful for
point-to-point links where many softwares like to know the address
of the peer. If we include something from Mobile IPv6 & co, the R
bit feature is the one to consider.

Regards

Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr

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