>>> Alain Durand wrote: >>> I still do not understand why this draft does not simply advocate >>> using 2 /128. >> >> There is something that makes me scream at the thought of not having >> both ends in the same subnet and/or not having a route for that subnet. >> Possibly some frame-relay flashback? Anyway, this sounds to me as bad as >> using unnumbered. B.A.D.
> This sounds like F.U.D. to me. Why do you think it is B.A.D.? It's a matter of operational practice. Same idea as having a routable loopback interface, for example. There are no addressing architecture requirements that says you need a routable loopback, but lots of people have them anyway. Place this in context: what we are talking about here is either a router-to-router tunnel or a router-to-router link. Guess what: there is likely to be a routing protocol there. Could you explain me how you configure RIP when the other router is not on the same subnet? 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
