Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 13:04:57 +0900
From: Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| i usually use /64 for p2p link. it works just fine, it supports
| temporary address (RFC3041) if you desire,
Yes, no argument with any of that. As I recall, using /64 is one of
the alternatives (to using /127 which this draft was written to discourage
I believe) that is given.
Of course, on a P2P link, any prefix length (< about 126) will support
temporary addresses, the only difference is how many of them exist to
choose between (which can't be detected from outside, which makes the
problem of having a smaller set fairly irrelevant). That is, there's
only one other node with which to possibly clash, and that one usually
has no motivation to use temporary addresses on the P2P link.
| i can think of no reason to use somethiing other than /64.
The obvious one is to conserve address space. Another is to make it
easier to see what are p2p links from their addresses (all of an organisation's
p2p links can easily be numbered out of one /64).
In any case, unless there's something that will be broken by using a
longer prefix, there's no reason to forbid it, is there?
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
