Re: [Autoconf] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-autoconf-addr-model-01

Hi Thomas,

Thanks for your review.

Happy new year.

I  will comment on one thing in your email, leaving the "routing  
domain" discussion for elsewhere.

On 5 Jan 2010, at 20:58, Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>

<snip>

>
>> 6.1.  IPv6 Model
>>
>>   For IPv6, the principles described in Section 4 and Section 5  
>> suggest
>>   the following rules:
>>
> ...
>>   o  No on-link subnet prefix is configured on this interface.
>>
>
> But:
>
>> 6.2.  IPv4 Model
>>
>>   For IPv4, the principles described in Section 4 and Section 5  
>> suggest
>>   rules similar to those mentioned for IPv6 in Section 6.1, that are:
>>
> ...
>>   o  Any subnet prefix configured on this interface should be of  
>> length
>>      /32.
>
> I don't see a lot of difference between an IPv6 "on-link" prefix and
> an IPv4 subnet prefix. It doesn't make sense to me that IPv6 and IPv4
> are treated differently.
>

I believe that Dave Thaler mentioned that there in no definition of an  
"on link prefix" for IPv4, and that this is the reason for the text  
being thus different for v4 and v6.

Thomas

> Thomas
> _______________________________________________
> Autoconf mailing list
> Autoconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf