Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 01:36:51 -0700
From: Alain Durand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| This sounds like F.U.D. to me. Why do you think it is B.A.D.?
Why are we even having this discussion (at this level)?
Different people like to number p2p links different ways, and there's
no reason to prohibit, or insist on, any of them. Which is the best
is very much a matter of opinion, they all have some advantages and
some drawbacks.
Personally, I don't see nearly as many problems with /127 as the
draft seems to - but on the other hand, I also see no possible
potential drawbacks from just using /112 instead - it is just absurd
to imagine that the difference in address space to number all the
p2p's between /112 and /127 is ever going to matter to anyone.
I have been using /112 on these things for a while now (I used to use /127).
The draft is just fine, with or without the extra mention of 2 * /128
as yet another way to "number" a p2p link (a link numbered that way
is generally just the same as a unnumbered link - the link itself has
no prefix assigned). Let's just agree to ship it.
kre
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
