Pekka, > What do others think -- is this something worth noting?
Overall, I find the text excellent. I oppose solutions 2,3 and 4 because they bring extra complexity to solve a problem that does not exist. The problem that does not exist is the need to subnet a /64. The reason /127 subnets have become popular is simply because of the old IPv4 habit of using a /30 for a point to point link. We collectively have to unlearn that. In other words, if operators are breaking RFC 2373 because of old working habits, the solution is to aquire new working habits, which is using a /64 for point-to-point links and stay in complicance with RFC2373, solution 1. It is clear that you were reading another thread on this same list, "IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification". There are no reported RIR issues, and I still fail to see a valid reason to subnet a /64 when one should have used a /48 and subnet using the SLA bits. IPv6 is not widely deployed, why can't we just configure it right? I disagree with the phrasing that solution 1 is a workaround. Solution 1 is the way it is supposed to be. Solution 2 is a workaround, and not a very good one, IMHO. If an operator has to renumber point-to-point links configured with a /126, it makes a lot more sense to me to catch the opportunity to comply with RFC 2373 and give it a /64 instead. Michel. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
