Subject: [psg.com #246] [2461bisissue 246] Preferred lifetime > valid lifetime

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 02:36:14 +0000

Issue:

What is the handling for the case where a prefix's preferred lifetime
exceeds the valid lifetime?

Suggestion: Specify that a router MUST NOT send a prefix option
containing preferred lifetime > valid lifetime

Current text in Preferred Lifetime description (sec 4.2):

Preferred Lifetime
                  32-bit unsigned integer.  The length of time in
                  seconds (relative to the time the packet is sent)
                  that addresses generated from the prefix via
                  stateless address autoconfiguration remain
                  preferred [ADDRCONF].  A value of all one bits
                  (0xffffffff) represents infinity.  See [ADDRCONF].
                  Note that the value of this field MUST NOT exceed 
                  the Valid Lifetime field to avoid preferring 
                  addresses that are no longer valid.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 02:36:14 +0000

Issue:

Preferred Lifetime

---

From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 00:05:45 +0900

>>>>> On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 02:36:14 +0000, 
>>>>> [email-masked] said:

>                   addresses that are no longer valid.

Let me check: is this your suggested text in rfc2461bis?

(BTW: I guess you meant "sec 4.6.2", not "sec 4.2")

					JINMEI, Tatuya
					Communication Platform Lab.
					Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
					[email-masked]