On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, Michel Py wrote: > > Pekka Savola wrote: > > In addition to using a different prefix length, one could > > also use only link-local addresses or "two /128's". > > I don't like the "or two /128's" part of this. Link-local addresses are > not /128s.
Note that link-locals and two /128's are two separate cases. "two /128's" means an implementation (like KAME) where you can do this without link-local addresses. Obviously the wording is a bit off. But I couldn't figure out how to say it without getting into static routes or whatnot. Any ideas? > Link-local addresses are technically ok. Actually, I think that they > should be #2 in the list of options. In a large network, they are a > troubleshooting headache but in a small network there is nothing to say > against them. I've considered putting link-locals only in solutions 1), more or less equal with /64. -- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
