Clarifications on On-link and Subnet IPv6 Prefixes
draft-jinmei-6man-prefix-clarify-00
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Tatuya Jinmei | ||
| Last updated | 2017-09-14 (Latest revision 2017-03-13) | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
The IPv6 Neighbor Discovery and Stateless Address Autoconfiguration protocols intentionally separate the handling of prefixes for their purposes: these prefixes can be different for the same link even if it may be uncommon in practice; validation for these purposes is expected to be performed separately and independently. Despite the revised text of the latest versions of these protocol specifications, it appears that the idea of this separation can still be easily misunderstood. This document clarifies the idea even more explicitly in order to set the common understanding of the intent of the current specifications.
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)