>Today there aren't any problems, but that's because nobody
>is using very many subnet prefixes on the same {,multi-}link.
>I think the current design decision essentially codifies that,
>at least for mobile nodes. Is that the intended result?
(just for clarifications, not sure if it is related to the discussion)
i don't quite parse the above paragraph.
there are a lot of links where we assign multiple subnet prefixes
(different /64 from different upstream ISP). it is useful, for example,
for RFC3178. also, if you are willing to use router renumbering
and such, a /64 prefix out of fec0::/48 range will be added too.
itojun
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
