Re: [dhcwg] Changes to remove "client-link-local-address" from th e DHCPv6 header

> Therefore, I would suggest it can either be the prefix (with 0's in
> the interface id) or just an address. Since the server knows the
> prefix lengths, it can find the appropriate "network" by doing the
> checks only against the prefix-length bits. Essentially, only the
> prefix bits are significant and the remaining bits are don't
> care. But, I have no major issue if we want to force it to be just
> the prefix (with 0's in the other bits).

If we force it to be just the prefix, the relay has to know the length
of the prefix in order to figure out what it is, right?   :')

Anyway, I think your loose interpretation is fine - any address in the
subnet's range should be fine, including the prefix+all zeros address.
The point is that it is semantically *not* the address to which the
reply goes.

			       _MelloN_

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg