On Sun, 10 Feb 2002, Michel Py wrote: > > 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.
IMO, 2) adds no complexity. 3 might be remotely sensible, but 3 and 4 both cannot be relied on.. so if you want to be sure, you always have to do either 1) or 2). I hope I made the problems with at least 4) sufficiently clear. > 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. Well, and then there is also RFC3021, "Using 31-Bit Prefixes on IPv4 Point-to-Point Links" which is more of the equivalent.. > 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? At least at one time, Randy Bush advocated /64's for IX's because they didn't need more.. If IX's get /48, this is no problem. Anyway, I see why people see /126 and such as lucrative: they need to assign only _one_ /64 for all point-to-point links. There might be e.g. a couple of hundred of them, and even though 200 of them could fit fine to 2^16 subnets, you'd still have to define the addressing a bit more carefully. > 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. I didn't see the problem with the wording, but I'll change the text slighly to reflect to this. -- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
