On Wed, 7 Nov 2001, Matt Crawford wrote:
> 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. I think that there is a routing issue - if I, as an arbitratry host, am going to route packets destined for B::Y via A::X, I have to have a route telling me this. If the two nodes share a common prefix, A, then my route that gets me to A::X will also get me to A::Y. In the worst case with unrelated prefixes, I would need a host route (/128) to get me to B::Y. Ben -- Ben Clifford http://www.hawaga.org.uk/ben/ Telephone: United States 310 443-4485 United Kingdom 0709-227-5268 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
