Subject: (IPng 6990) Re: route distribution via ND

From: Marc Fiuczynski <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 10:17:56 -0800

>From: Thomas Narten [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 1998 5:17 AM
>To: Marc Fiuczynski
>Cc: 'Craig Metz'; Richard Draves; [email-masked]
>Subject: (IPng 6988) Re: route distribution via ND 
>
>> After reading this (and more of the RFC) it isn't clear 
>> to me how the prefix option should be processed if the
>> L bit (and other bits) are not
>> set.
>
>There are a number of bits defined in the prefix information
>option. If a particular bit is set, there are instructions on what
>that means. If a bit is not set, one is supposed to do *nothing*
>special. Look at it as if there are optional fields. How do you
>process an optional field in a packet if the optional field is
>omitted? You don't do *anything* at all!

I completely agree that if an option bit is off that one should just
ignore the particular handling of the option.  Someone else suggested
that the mechanism that Richard and I were proposing was already handled
when one left the autonomous and on-link option flag bits off.  This is
the reason Richard and I wanted to introduce a new bit in the option
information flags.

Marc
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------