Re: address vs. prefix (was: RFC7084)
Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Wed, 11 December 2013 15:53 UTC
Return-Path: <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7053E1ADF46 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 07:53:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.983
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.983 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1wIQeAkqoLQA for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 07:53:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oxalide-out.extra.cea.fr (oxalide-out.extra.cea.fr [132.168.224.8]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D2E51ADEB7 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 07:53:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by oxalide.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.3) with ESMTP id rBBFrgpT012619; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 16:53:42 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 99ED8204ED7; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 16:54:00 +0100 (CET)
Received: from muguet2.intra.cea.fr (muguet2.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.7]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C4B4204EC6; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 16:54:00 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (is010446-4.intra.cea.fr [10.8.33.116]) by muguet2.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.2) with ESMTP id rBBFrY20019635; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 16:53:42 +0100
Message-ID: <52A88A7D.4040906@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 16:53:33 +0100
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com>, Wuyts Carl <Carl.Wuyts@technicolor.com>, "<ipv6@ietf.org>" <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: address vs. prefix (was: RFC7084)
References: <96747494E3D74D41B20907035DB1E48DC7BB@MOPESMBX03.eu.thmulti.com> <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E611303B0269@GAALPA1MSGUSR9L.ITServices.sbc.com> <96747494E3D74D41B20907035DB1E48DCD72@MOPESMBX03.eu.thmulti.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1312100803370.24602@uplift.swm.pp.se> <F92E1B55-C74B-400C-B83E-6B50D175D121@steffann.nl> <52A74C8D.3050302@gmail.com> <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E611303B0E9F@GAALPA1MSGUSR9L.ITServices.sbc.com> <96747494E3D74D41B20907035DB1E48DD4D4@MOPESMBX03.eu.thmulti.com> <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E611303B13A7@GAALPA1MSGUSR9L.ITServices.sbc.com>
In-Reply-To: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E611303B13A7@GAALPA1MSGUSR9L.ITServices.sbc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 15:53:53 -0000
Le 11/12/2013 16:02, STARK, BARBARA H a écrit : > >> But WPD-4 is not ok, for the simple reason that O=1 means >> stateless. > > Per RFC4861 "When set, it [the O flag] indicates that other > configuration information is available via DHCPv6." The word > "stateless" is not present. As has been discussed, the word > "addresses" in the M-flag definition is interpreted differently by > different people, and some think it includes prefixes and some > don't. I agree some times people mix address and prefix in common talk. There is a multiple distinction to be made. First, yes, an address configured on an interface must have a prefix length (as in IPv4 it must have a subnet mask). By language abuse, or simple convenience, some say an address and prefix are configured by SLAAC, when actually just an address is configured by SLAAC. (the plen of the configured address is actually obtained by a substraction operation from a predefined length of Interface ID; the plen offered in RA is not for forming an address, but for on-link determination of ND). Second, there is a difference between the prefix advertised by RA, and a delegated prefix. The difference is the following: The prefix advertised by RA is to be used on that link, or on other links on the side of the router originating the RA; whereas the prefix delivered by a Prefix Delegation operation must not be used on that link, and should be used on other links on the side of the router requesting this prefix. (this second difference is so much missed by specifiers at 3GPP.) Alex
- RFC7084 Wuyts Carl
- RE: RFC7084 STARK, BARBARA H
- Re: RFC7084 Sander Steffann
- Re: RFC7084 Ole Troan
- Re: RFC7084 Sander Steffann
- Re: RFC7084 Erik Kline
- RE: RFC7084 Wuyts Carl
- RE: RFC7084 Mikael Abrahamsson
- RE: RFC7084 Wuyts Carl
- Re: RFC7084 Sander Steffann
- RE: RFC7084 Hemant Singh (shemant)
- Re: RFC7084 Simon Perreault
- RE: RFC7084 Wuyts Carl
- Re: RFC7084 Simon Perreault
- RE: RFC7084 Wuyts Carl
- Re: RFC7084 Ole Troan
- RE: RFC7084 Wuyts Carl
- Re: RFC7084 Ole Troan
- RE: RFC7084 STARK, BARBARA H
- Re: [v6ops] RFC7084 Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] RFC7084 Sander Steffann
- Re: [v6ops] RFC7084 Ole Troan
- Re: [v6ops] RFC7084 Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [v6ops] RFC7084 Owen DeLong
- Re: [v6ops] RFC7084 Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] RFC7084 Ole Troan
- RE: [v6ops] RFC7084 STARK, BARBARA H
- Re: [v6ops] RFC7084 Sander Steffann
- Re: [v6ops] RFC7084 Nick Hilliard
- RE: [v6ops] RFC7084 Manfredi, Albert E
- Re: [v6ops] RFC7084 Ted Lemon
- RE: [v6ops] RFC7084 Hemant Singh (shemant)
- Re: [v6ops] RFC7084 Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] RFC7084 Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: RFC7084 Alexandru Petrescu
- RE: RFC7084 Wuyts Carl
- Re: [v6ops] RFC7084 Erik Kline
- Re: [v6ops] RFC7084 Alexandru Petrescu
- RE: [v6ops] RFC7084 Wuyts Carl
- Re: Re: [v6ops] RFC7084 Ray Hunter
- RE: [v6ops] RFC7084 STARK, BARBARA H
- RE: [v6ops] RFC7084 Hemant Singh (shemant)
- Re: address vs. prefix (was: RFC7084) Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [v6ops] RFC7084 Owen DeLong
- Re: [v6ops] RFC7084 Owen DeLong
- Re: [v6ops] RFC7084 Gert Doering
- Re: [v6ops] RFC7084 Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] RFC7084 Michael Richardson
- Re: [v6ops] RFC7084 Ole Troan
- Re: [v6ops] RFC7084 Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [v6ops] RFC7084 Ole Troan
- Re: [v6ops] RFC7084 Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [v6ops] RFC7084 Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [v6ops] RFC7084 Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [v6ops] RFC7084 Gert Doering
- Re: [v6ops] RFC7084 Owen DeLong
- Re: [v6ops] RFC7084 Gert Doering
- Re: IA_PD bit in RA (was: RFC7084) Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [v6ops] RFC7084 Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] RFC7084 Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] RFC7084 Nick Hilliard
- Re: IA_PD bit in RA (was: RFC7084) Owen DeLong
- Re: [v6ops] RFC7084 Ole Troan
- Re: IA_PD bit in RA Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: IA_PD bit in RA Owen DeLong
- Re: IA_PD bit in RA Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: IA_PD bit in RA Owen DeLong
- Re: IA_PD bit in RA Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: IA_PD bit in RA Owen DeLong
- Re: IA_PD bit in RA Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: IA_PD bit in RA Owen DeLong
- Re: IA_PD bit in RA sthaug
- Re: IA_PD bit in RA Alexandru Petrescu
- RE: IA_PD bit in RA STARK, BARBARA H