On Tue, 6 Nov 2001, Christian Huitema wrote: > /127 for a P-t-P link? This must be a bug! We need a /64!
Tell that to ARIN et al which advocate(d) a single /64 as an IX allocation. Does "640kb should be enough for everyone." sound familiar... :-) > Have people considered the privacy implications? The computer at the end > of the link may well want to use privacy addresses. Also, there is a > credible possibility that a computer is composed of multiple subsystems, > each with their own IPv6 address. In the aggregatable architecture, it > makes a lot of sense if "n" is in fact 64 for most links. I don't think it's being pushed that /127 be used (/64 should be preferred), but sometimes a smaller allocation might make more sense, in one way or another. Under these circumstances, it is not often necessary to worry about privacy. -- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
