Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 00:42:16 -1000 (HST)
From: Antonio Querubin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| a point to point link doesn't really
| need a global address in many cases.
Assuming this is true, the inference is that there are some cases
where a global address is required.
That's true: I know of one - munnari.oz.au has a P2P link for IPv6,
and that's its only IPv6 connectivity. Assuming that it is to have
a global v6 address (and it does) it has to be assigned to the P2P
link, there is nothing else to assign it to (it isn't a router, just
a host, and the p2p link is a tunnel, of course, not that that matters).
Given that, the question is how the global address space should be
used on P2P links when addresses are required, surely? The question
of what to do when they're not required (and not wanted either) is
not relevant, is it?
So, can we please get off the rat hole issue of whether or not p2p
links should be numbered, and return to discussing the draft, which
gives some guidelines on how to number them (and how not to) when they
are being numbered? (With, as I recall, though it has been a while
since I looked, no statements at all saying that p2p links actually
should be numbered).
kre
ps: there's no v6 DNS entry for munnari yet, so don't bother looking.
Its v6 connectivity is weird, and I don't want to subject that path to
the kind of traffic volumes that munnari tends to attract - and perhaps
would, even over the 6bone. Its A6 record will appear once I get better
connectivity, which means when the local academic network people manage
to get themselves connected (they have the APNIC prefix ready...)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
