>% from the above I don't know if Bill have autoconfigured routers...
>% did you?
> Yes. This involved a number of boxes. (see the recent thread on
> host/router)
(as there were many comments) RFC2462 is just for hosts, not for
routers.
>% my bet is that link-local address (for tcp endpoint address) has
>% the best resistance against renumber or other events, however,
>% there are implementations that cannot do this. also it may conflict
>% with Francis' BGP4+ RFC (but the RFC is not too clear about separation
>% between tcp/179 endpoint address, and nexthop values - at least for me)
>
> Too many problems there. IX'en really need global space.
could you list some of the problems? the only issue I see is the
possible non-uniqueness of 128 bit address (as pointed out by Francis).
>% there are people using addresses that are not reachable from outside,
>% as i have pointed out in the following. PAIX is using a /32 got from
>% ISI, however, the prefix used at PAIX is not reachable from outside
>% if we filter routes based on 6bone routing guideline.
>% not sure if it is a real problem or not.
> The 6bone routing guideline is oriented toward ISPs, as are the RIR
> delegations practices. IX'en are different than ISPs and so the ISP
> rules applied to IX'en often break.
...therefore I tried to propose a written rule for IX prefix assignment
in the following email (like "you should accept /32 routes under
3ffe:800::/24"). do you have any comments?
>% To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>% Subject: reachability issue with 3ffe:80a::/32 (PAIX IX segment)
>% From: Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>% Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 21:13:59 +0900
>% Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>% Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
itojun
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
