Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-liu-bonica-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem

[Ole Troan <[e-mail]>]

Mikael,

>>>> A new draft has been posted, at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-liu-bonica-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem. Please take a look at it and comment.
>>> 
>>> My comment just now at the mic:
>>> 
>>> I would like to see if any implementation actually deprecates the /64
>>> onlink prefix when A goes from 1 to 0, or ignores the on-link prefix when
>>> A=0.
>> 
>> What do you mean by "deprecate the /64 onlink prefix"?
>> 
>> Are you referring to this part of
>> draft-liu-bonica-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem?
>> 
>> [...] But when
>> SLAAC-configured, and A changed from 1 to 0, the behaviors varied,
>> some deprecated SLAAC while some ignored the RA messages.
>> 
>> On re-reading it now, the draft text (specifically "deprecated SLAAC")
>> is not very clear either, but at least it's clear to me that this is
>> about address configuration, not about on/off link.
> 
> Yes, I know this is about address configuration. I am still curious if all OSes keep the /64 interface route when A changes to 0 (or is 0 to begin with). If you feel this is out of scope that's fine, then my curiosity will stay unanswered.

in the nit-picking department, wouldn't that really be the L flag?

cheers,
Ole