On 28/06/2015 06:25, Michael Richardson wrote: > > >>> And sorry if I sound like a broken record, but I would like the > ability to > >>> set up a router-router link with less than a full /64 allocated to > it, at > >>> least in the ad-hoc case. > > Not sure who said this part. > > My question is: for a router/router link, even if it's really ethernet rather > than PPP, why wouldn't one use *just* link-local addresses?
As long as you don't break the rules by using those addresses in ICMP replies. Brian > While I have > encountered a few OSPFv3 implementations that wouldn't run over link-local > addresses, the vendors admitted that it was a bug. (That equipment got > obsoleted due to 512K limit on v4 routing slots before that got fixed though) > > If there something in HNCP that would require router/router links to be > numbered? Or is it a case of, one just doesn't *know* that there will never > be end-hosts on the link. If one requires manual intervention to allocate > a prefix longer than /64 to a link, then one could also just say it was a > router-only link. > > -- > Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works > -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet > _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
