Hi Hemant, > You have one interpretation of Loopback with BGP described above. > Further, use of Loopback by BGP is an orthogonal discussion to the /127 > issue. So really, we do not understand the full scope of the problem > you are trying to address.
- As for the use of loopback, Jinmei and some others also suggested it. (From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 8:06 AM. please refer to the original email for the full text.) ----------- it would be less controversial to use the so called "off-link" model, that is, the two routers assign two independent addresses to each end of the p2p link, e.g. 2001:db8:1111:2222::0/128 and 2001:db8:1111:2222::1/128, and ensure these addresses are reachable via the p2p link by some other method as mentioned above. ----------- - You had asked what the problem with eBGP was, saying TTL would not be decremented. So I just wanted to clarify. - Sorry if my communication skill is not good, but I'd really like to find a room for compromise, given a difference between backbone routers and cpes. (And for the scope of the problem, I'd appreciate if you could read the draft.) Thanks, Miya -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
