Re: [2461bis issue 250] Reception of prefix option with prefix length > 64

Erik Nordmark <Erik.Nordmark@sun.com> Tue, 30 March 2004 23:13 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA26603 for <ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Mar 2004 18:13:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B8RjU-0006Xa-Lo for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Mar 2004 17:29:20 -0500
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1RM8kHE007664 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Feb 2004 17:08:46 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Awq9y-0001zW-AX for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Feb 2004 17:08:42 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA27643 for <ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Feb 2004 17:08:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Awq9w-0005cf-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Feb 2004 17:08:40 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Awq91-0005Uy-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Feb 2004 17:07:44 -0500
Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Awq88-0005OR-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Feb 2004 17:06:48 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Awq7P-0000vG-8X; Fri, 27 Feb 2004 17:06:03 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Awq72-0000n5-CX for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Feb 2004 17:05:40 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA27464 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Feb 2004 17:05:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Awq70-0005GP-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Feb 2004 17:05:38 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Awq67-0005B5-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Feb 2004 17:04:44 -0500
Received: from nwkea-mail-1.sun.com ([192.18.42.13]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Awq5t-00055N-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Feb 2004 17:04:29 -0500
Received: from bebop.France.Sun.COM ([129.157.174.15]) by nwkea-mail-1.sun.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i1RM3u0J028703; Fri, 27 Feb 2004 14:03:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bobo (punchin-nordmark.SFBay.Sun.COM [192.9.61.11]) by bebop.France.Sun.COM (8.11.7p1+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with SMTP id i1RM3sQ10923; Fri, 27 Feb 2004 23:03:54 +0100 (MET)
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 13:32:46 -0800 (PST)
From: Erik Nordmark <Erik.Nordmark@sun.com>
Reply-To: Erik Nordmark <Erik.Nordmark@sun.com>
Subject: Re: [2461bis issue 250] Reception of prefix option with prefix length > 64
To: JINMEI Tatuya / =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?= <jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp>
Cc: Soliman Hesham <H.Soliman@flarion.com>, IETF Mailing List <ipv6@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: "Your message with ID" <y7vad35j8f3.wl@ocean.jinmei.org>
Message-ID: <Roam.SIMC.2.0.6.1077917566.1291.nordmark@bebop.france>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60

> However, I think the receiving node should still consider the prefix
> as valid in terms of ND (i.e., consider it as "on-link") and modify
> the next-hop determination accordingly.
> 
> The questions are:
> 
> 1. is this a correct understanding of the intention of RFC2461?
> 2. if yes, is this a reasonable behavior?
> 3. if yes (for both 1 and 2), should this explicitly be documented in
>    rfc2461bis?

This separation was the intent AFAIK, thus I answer "yes" on 1.
If implementors have missed this then it sure should be clarified
in the spec.
If all or almost all of the implementors have missed this and we don't
have a good reason for this behavior we should consider changing the 
specification.

  Erik


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