On Tue, 6 Nov 2001, Matt Crawford wrote: > I've never been able to think of a theoretical reason why the two > endpoints of a point-to-point link have to have addresses which are > related in any way. Is there some more practical reason why they > should be?
I'm not really sure what you mean, but unless I'm mistaking... You usually want to add routes, the other end as the next hop. If the other end is not "connected", this is may be difficult. As for theoretical reasons, I guess it would be enough just to be able to declare arbitrary addresses "connected" to specified interfaces by adding host routes if the implementation allows adding such for P-t-P links without an explicit next-hop. -- Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted, Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall" Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
