> Pekka Savola wrote: > 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?
There needs to be something about the route install, as it is specific to the implementation. Seriously, I don't think that two /128s would ever be considered on a large network. >> 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. Makes sense also, as /64s and LLs are the only two options that do not violate [addrarch]. Michel. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
