Re: a draft about on-link and submit prefixes

[[e-mail]]

>>> If possible, I would suggest making this document even more general. It's
>>> mostly geared to how implementations treat PIOs, and refers to RFC 4861 and
>>> RFC 4862, but really I think the clarifications it makes have much broader
>>> impact. As I see it, the core issues here are:
>>> 
>>>  - IPv6 addresses don't specify any on-link information
>>>  - For most (but not all) unicast addresses, subnet prefixes are 64 bits
>>>  per RFC 4291.
>>>  - A given subnet prefix can be spread across multiple links, and a given
>>>  link can support multiple subnet prefixes.
>>> 
>>> This is not immediately obvious to people who are familiar with the IPv4
>>> subnet model, because it is quite different.
>> 
>> I agree that a generalization is a good idea. In particular, it would
>> be good to have (in one place) a definition of what an IPv6 subnet is,
>> especially if a subnet can be spread across multiple links (which is
>> *not* obvious to me from reading RFC 4861 and RFC 4862).
> 
> I like this idea. Examples along the lines that Lorenzo included in his email would also be useful to include, with notes on use cases.

Any idea of what problem we're trying to solve...?

Ole