Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 08:18:06 -0800
From: "Christian Huitema" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| 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.
Your message, and Matt's, are both missing the point. The question
isn't whether using a /127 is the right way, or the only way, or
whether a subnet number needs to be allocated at all (Matt - one reason
is for connecting isolated systems, which have the P2P link as their
only network connection - they have no other addresses to use).
The issue Pekka raised, was assuming that a /127 is being used, how
are these particular anycast addresses to be allocated - and does that
mean that we should prohibit /127's or something. It was certainly
a reasonable question.
Looking for ways to avoid the problem might be nice if you're faced with
deciding what to do in the field, but it isn't the correct approach when
what is being done is writing the specs.
I'll answer Charlie's message separately...
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
