On Aug 23, 2010, at 4:49 PM, Mark Smith wrote: > On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 09:55:48 -0400 > Jared Mauch <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On Aug 23, 2010, at 9:17 AM, Mark Smith wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 14:11:04 +0200 (CEST) >>> [email protected] wrote: >>> >>>>> These mechanisms are applicable to any type of link, would preserve the >>>>> simplicity of universal 64 bit IIDs and the other benefits of them e.g. >>>>> CGAs, as well as avoiding the ping-pong problem. >>>> >>>> IMHO, the "universality" of 64 bit IIDs went down the drain the moment >>>> router vendors allowed longer than 64 bit netmasks to be configured. >>>> >>> >>> So how does that prevent those prefix lengths being changed to /64? >> >> Because you would then end up with overlapping address space that is >> unreachable in a production deployment. >> > > Not necessarily. If I were to deploy /127s, I'd be allocating /64s to > the links.
You may put a /64 on your /127 links in addition, but most people only put one IP subnet on a link, otherwise they might want redirects ;) >> But that would be an operational item and not an standards body item? >> > > This has been cross posted to v6ops. Operationally the vendors may be violating some RFC, so lets publish what is relevant and working today so we can all move on? We can deal with any additional updates and items with "how IPv6" works elsewhere or in a new document so we can move /127 on p2p links along? - Jared -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
