On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, Michel Py wrote: > > 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.
I don't want to get to implementation specifics here.. > >> 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]. That's mostly irrelevant though, as people who read the draft chose not to do as addrarch says anyway. -- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
