> 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).
I still don't see it. That an argument against unnumbered links, but it still doesn't imply any topological relation between the addresses of the endpoints. Kernel tables and routing protocols are both able to cope with a p-p link from A::X to B::Y. But, as I said, there may be operational concerns of which I am innocent. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
