Re: New I-D Submitted (Re: Newbie Question about addressing impacts)
Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email protected]> Mon, 25 Oct 2004 11:00:44 +0200
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.multi6 |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 25-okt-04, at 8:47, Arifumi Matsumoto wrote: > As for the packet size issue, we are thinking of some devices. > - We've adopted prefix space compression in RA. Almost all the > prefixes in SAS Policy are expected to be less than 64-bit length, so > it is wasteful to allocate 128-bit space for each prefix field. > - We are also thinking of cutting down SAS Policy option, for example, > once a minute, once every two packets or only for router solicitation. > - In cooperation with DHCP, RA only specifies O flag and SAS Policy > information is delivered by DHCP. That's good, but what troubles me is that when you can have N policy expressions in a packet, what happens when there is a need for N+1 policy expressions? >> Why must the padding be ones? On many systems, newly allocated memory >> is filled with zeros, so this would be easier. And then there's >> tradition. :-) > This may look a bit tricky. > This is because 8-bit zero field means "::/0" in our specification. > But this is not essential, and can be changed by introducing "number of > prefix" field or something like that. If you just say in the draft "padding and end marker" this should clear everything up nicely in the draft.