On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, Robert Elz wrote: > From: Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> | 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? Concur on both points. Just because one can assign a /64 and get millions of addresses on a p2p link doesn't mean one should. Furthermore, I can understand the arguments for avoiding /127 or /128 but in the cases where the lost capability is a non-issue why bother forbidding even those 2 prefix lengths? -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
