it also seems, to me at least, that there are a few involved ops folks saying: "Hi, we like the idea of /127, we like the simplicity, we understand how to do this... could you remove the subnet-router-anycast bits for 'router' instances and let us get back to operating this network for you?"
It seems that listening to the folks running the network for you, in a case that's not harmful to every other case you want to use the 96bit longer addresses... makes some sense. -Chris On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 6:35 AM, Miya Kohno <[email protected]> wrote: > Shin-san, > >> Actually, the text you wrote >> >> > And for LAN segments, I agree ND should be enhanced for >> > solving the ND cache issue. >> >> caused my question >> >> How about inter-router ethernet links (with 3+ routers) >> today we often use ? >> >> It seems to me that if we have solutions for the case of >> inter-router ethernet links with more than three routers >> against the problems you mentioned in the draft, they also >> could be appicable for inter-router ethernet liks with only >> two routers, I think. >> >> # Then, what happend if we can not have solutions for 3+ more >> routers case ??? > > I think there is no generalized answer. It all depends. > > - If it's a typical LAN segment where plug and play is given, > Then /64 of course (+ enhanced ND, hopefully) > > - If it's an inter-router link where plug'n play is not required, and > the number of routers are limited and deterministic, > Then appropriate prefix-length (e.g. > /112) can be chosen. It > could mitigate the problems to a certain extent. (But not perfectly, > unlike /127... So one might think the merit does not overweigh the > advantage of uniformed /64.) > > Cheers, > Miya > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > [email protected] > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
