> | 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.
read RFC3041 again carefully. it assumes 64bit interface identifier,
therefore it assumes /64 subnet prefix.
itojun
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
