Hesham Soliman: Just bumped into this statement in section 11.5.3:

   The
   mobile node MUST ensure that its primary care-of address always has a
   prefix that is considered on-link by its current default router,
   i.e., advertised by its current default router in a solicited Router
   Advertisement

I don't understand why we need this restriction. The interpretation
of the above would mean that the L flag in the prefix option
must be set. There is no reason for this IMO. 

I think the intention was to say that the prefix is included
in the RA, period. But the text above is misleading because
of its use of the term 'on-link'. 

----------

Ed Remmell: This was added to prohibit a sloppy implementation of MIPv6 MN that
keeps around old prefix information (as well as perhaps Neighbor Cache
and Redirect routing entries for the old link) in its routing tree even
after movement to a new link/subnet. When the MN moves from the old
link, all of the prefix information, etc. that was discovered on the old
link must be invalidated since the MN is no longer attached to that
link.

How about reword to:

"The mobile node MUST ensure that its primary care-of address always has
a prefix that is advertised by its current default router in a solicited
Router Advertisement."

----------

Hesham Soliman: Yes of course, but that wording means something else.

 > How about reword to:
 > 
 > "The mobile node MUST ensure that its primary care-of 
 > address always has
 > a prefix that is advertised by its current default router in 
 > a solicited
 > Router Advertisement."

Sure, ("solicited RA" can be removed too)

----------

Ed Remmell: So, reword to:

"The mobile node MUST ensure that its primary care-of address always has
a prefix that is advertised by its current default router."

I'm OK with that change, it is clearer. Are we still making changes to
this draft?

A solicited RA should have the full set of prefix information known to
the router for that link. Unsolicited RAs do not have to contain
complete information, in fact if they are RA "beacons" that are sent
very frequently to help MNs detect movement they very likely will not
contain much information besides just a 'R' bit Prefix Information
Option with a global scope router address.

----------

Ed Remmel: I wanted to check the change for issue 331, but the latest
draft text isn't available online. The version online still has:

"The mobile node MUST ensure that its primary care-of address always has a
prefix that is considered on-link by its current default router, i.e.,
advertised by its current default router in a solicited Router
Advertisement."

If you change this to:
"The mobile node MUST ensure that its primary care-of address always has a
prefix that is advertised by its current default router."

Then I'm OK with that change.

----------

Brian Haley: The final edits on the issue list for 327 and 331 look
ok, but I would leave 332 alone as Ed suggested.

----------

----------

----------