Hi Mark and all, Thank you for your reviewing the draft and the valuable discussion.
> If the purpose of the draft-kohno-ipv6-prefixlen-p2p-01.txt > draft is to contradict the position of RFC3627, then I think > the draft needs to address all the points made in RFC3627, > not just the Anycast router one. That would fundamentally > mean changing the updated version of RFC3513, RFC4291, "IP > Version 6 Addressing Architecture" to support interface > identifiers that are smaller than 64 bits. RFC3627 admits the use of other longer prefixes e.g. /112, /120, /126. And this draft basically adheres to RFC3627. The difference is that the use of /127 prefix length is no longer be considered as harmful. (This was stated in the -00 draft. Maybe we should put this back.) The problem is the title of the RFC3627... Only because of the title, it is said that /127 is prohibited by IETF. So we wanted to invalidate this. But "obsoletes" might be too strong. Would "updates" be more adequate...? > I'd like to understand why SONET links don't use ND. Are > there any references to operating IPv6 over SONET that > explain why ND can't be enabled? ND is a great mechanism for plug and play. But inter-router p2p link does not require it and it's simpler to turn it off if unnecessary. Please note that the scope of the draft is limited to "inter-router p2p links". So it excludes LAN segments, hosts which need SLAAC, etc. We'd clarify this more in the next version. And for LAN segments, I agree ND should be enhanced for solving the ND cache issue. Thanks, Miya -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
