[psg.com #250] Reception of prefix option with prefix length > 64
rt+ipv6-2461bis@rt.psg.com Thu, 23 September 2004 19:17 UTC
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA13289 for <ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 15:17:50 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CAZD6-0007YP-0g for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 15:24:57 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CAYxF-0006VN-Ou; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 15:08:33 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CAYmR-00067F-N6 for ipv6@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 14:57:23 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10869 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 14:57:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] ident=mailnull) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CAYtH-00079W-I9 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 15:04:28 -0400
Received: from www by psg.com with local (Exim 4.41 (FreeBSD)) id 1CAYmQ-0002ca-5p for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 18:57:22 +0000
CC: ipv6@ietf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <rt-250@psg.com>
X-Mailer: Perl5 Mail::Internet v1.62
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
RT-Originator: h.soliman@flarion.com
X-RT-Original-Encoding: utf-8
Managed-BY: RT 3.0.11 (http://www.bestpractical.com/rt/)
RT-Ticket: psg.com #250
Message-Id: <rt-3.0.11-250-2857.10.2987820139967@psg.com>
Precedence: bulk
X-RT-Loop-Prevention: psg.com
From: rt+ipv6-2461bis@rt.psg.com
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 18:57:22 +0000
X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 0a7aa2e6e558383d84476dc338324fab
Subject: [psg.com #250] Reception of prefix option with prefix length > 64
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Reply-To: rt+ipv6-2461bis@rt.psg.com
List-Id: "IP Version 6 Working Group \(ipv6\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
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>
Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 52f7a77164458f8c7b36b66787c853da
Folks, This is now an old issue and no one objected to the resolution below. In addition, a few people seem to be against explicitly restricting the prefix to 64 bits in the specification. So I'm closing this issue with the resolution shown below. Hesham > [h.soliman@flarion.com - Tue Jul 20 10:02:35 2004]: > > This issue was discussed in some detail. > > I've done the following: > > - Clarified the prefix length field in 4.6.2 > - Added clarifications to the second last paragraph in > 6.3.4. > > Text in 4.6.2: > > Prefix Length 8-bit unsigned integer. The number of leading bits > in the Prefix that are valid. The value ranges > from 0 to 128. The prefix length field provides > necessary information for on-link determination > (when combined with other flags in the prefix > option). It also assists with address > autoconfiguration as specified in [ADDRCONF], for > which there may be more restrictions on the prefix > length. > > > Text in 6.3.4: > > Stateless address autoconfiguration [ADDRCONF] may in some > circumstances increase the Valid Lifetime of a prefix or ignore it > completely in order to prevent a particular denial of service attack. > However, since the effect of the same denial of service targeted at > the on-link prefix list is not catastrophic (hosts would send packets > to a default router and receive a redirect rather than sending > packets directly to a neighbor) the Neighbor Discovery protocol does > not impose such a check on the prefix lifetime values. Similarly, > [ADDRCONF] may impose certain restrictions on the prefix length for > address configuration purposes. Therefore, the prefix might be > rejected by [ADDRCONF] implementation in the host. However, the > prefix length is still valid for on-link determination when combined > with other flags in the prefix option. > > > Currently there is no text that limits the prefix length > to 64 if the A flag is set (as recommended by the IAB). > I'd like to hear from the WG if this should be added. > > Hesham > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
- [2461bis issue 250] Reception of prefix option wi… Soliman Hesham
- Re: [2461bis issue 250] Reception of prefix optio… Markku Savela
- Re: [2461bis issue 250] Reception of prefix optio… JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
- RE: [2461bis issue 250] Reception of prefix optio… Soliman Hesham
- Re: [2461bis issue 250] Reception of prefix optio… Erik Nordmark
- [psg.com #250] Reception of prefix option with pr… rt+ipv6-2461bis
- [psg.com #250] Reception of prefix option with pr… rt+ipv6-2461bis