On 21/09/2012 22:35, Usman Latif wrote: > Thanks Wes for the feedback. ... >>>> Without this stated clearly there is likely to be some instances where >>>> readers interpret it the wrong way and end up assigning multiple p2p links >>>> with /127 subnets from a single given /64 and end up having to re-address >>>> their network in future when/if future standards use lower order 64 bits >>>> for special purposes. >> [WEG] Given the fact that there is a standard that documents the use of a >> /127 for P2P links (6164),
Wes, I think that statement is even a bit weak, since 6164 actually says: "assuming that a number of point-to-point links will be numbered out of a single /64 prefix:" so it is very clear: it is allowed by the standard to share a /64 among however many pt2pt links the operator cares to. This is *not* a wrong interpretation. As you say, any future work will need to take account of this. Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
