Hello folks,
Why isn't it sensible to declare that 120 bits is the longest possible subnet prefix, so that point-to-point links can conform to RFC 2526 "Reserved IPv6 Subnet Anycast Addresses"? There may be other anycast addresses useful in the future that cannot be handled by the sort of special-case analysis that has been applied to the "Subnet Router" anycast address. Then applications using those addresses would not work on point-to-point links, which seems like a mistake to me. Regards, Charlie P. Robert Elz wrote: > > Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 15:46:57 +0200 (EET) > From: Pekka Savola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > | I believe, the only thing there is to nail this for good is to either/and: > | - specify the rational behaviour of anycast assignment in this case > > I certainly have no problem if someone wants to write a draft which > details the issues, and explains the way to deal with it - just as > long as the way isn't "use /126 or smaller" (except possibly to suggest > that as a workaround to deal with implementations that don't do the > sensible thing). > > That is, I have no problem as long as the someone isn't me... > > kre > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
