RE: RFC 2461- issue list

[Soliman Hesham <H.Soliman@flarion.com>]

 > > 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.
 > 
 > Two issues:
 >  - The router might not have an address in every prefix it 
 > advertises.
 >    Should a host still that the prefix field is indeed a useful
 >    address for the router in that case?
 >  - Existing routers do not put their address in the prefix 
 > option even
 >    when the router has an address in that prefix.
 >    Should a host still that the prefix field is indeed a useful
 >    address for the router in that case?
 > 
 > If we want to add this to 2461bis I think we must add the 
 > "R" bit as well.

=> Yes, given that we can put the R bit in the spec this 
seems like a good way to move forwad. Vijay, I'm assuming
that you don't have an objection to adding the R bit 
anyway. So let's do that. 

Hesham


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