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

> 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                   addresses that are no longer valid.

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]

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