On Wed, 12 Jun 2002, Randy Bush wrote:
> > Of course, 2 /128's could also be used. This seems like an
> > elegant solution, but may be operationally more cumbersome with
> > some implementations (e.g. requiring to set a static route).
As several people have expressed their dislike on this approach I propose
either:
a) remove the above section altogether (restore what it was),
b) replace it with something like:
In addition to using a different prefix length, one could use
two /128's or avoid using global addresses altogether. Further
discussion on the benefits and drawbacks of different solutions
is out of the scope, as it is not the goal of this memo to try
to find "best" prefix length for everyone.
c) suggest your own!
--
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
