(most of the discussion seems to be revolving around a simple, to me, phrasing problem, but)
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 5:53 AM, Hemant Singh (shemant) <[email protected]> wrote: > We are discussing off-link model and RFC 5942 is described in this RFC. > Further, when an interface of a router acquires an IPv6 address or > receives an RA, the interface is acting as a host. > anyone that configures a router with RA is headed for disaster anyway... (not a cpe device mind you, though most of those will get addressing via pppoe/pd and not RA so...) I think the case that maz/miyao outlined is a normal internet backbone router, it has many interfaces (several hundred), it has many (several hundred) bgp sessions to neighbors. today the interfaces are being configured as /127's in some cases. This draft, which I support as being a working group item (we really should just discuss that portion first, then argue language issues), only seeks to clarify that using /127's (or for thayler: "two addresses on a single link, which may coincidentally be adjacent addresses") is common operations practice and should be supported by routing equipment vendors. -chris (can we call the question in a clean/new email about adoption pls? There was interest in the room for same.) -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
