>> as you say, the loopback discussion is a 'red herring.' >> >> the subject is really simple. on p2p inter-router links many of us use >> /31s and /127s. they work well and meet our operational needs. there >> are some documents which muddy the use of /127s. we want it made very >> clear that /127s on inter-router p2p links are supported. > > Also, the distinction between "on-link model" and "off-link model" is > unlikely to be understood by practitioners, IMHO. As seen from the > viewpoint of a router jockey - if I have a /127 and the two routers > on this link are using the only two available addresses in the /127, > it is obvious to me that the router at the other end of the link is > indeed on a directly connected link.
+1. and I would also expect address resolution to work on this link. (I don't quite understand how the off-link model would apply in this case. on a router to router link, neither end would do router discovery and there wouldn't be any default router to send a packet to.) cheers, Ole -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
