On 9/21/12 12:03 AM, Usman Latif wrote:
I suppose bodies like IETF all need to ensure that there are
definitive guidelines around addressing architectures so that future
implementations of procotol stacks and features donot overlap with
bits in the IPv6 address space that could potentially be used on p2p
inter-router links (i.e. there could be address assignments done based
on subnet prefixes longer than /64 on p2p links) and obviously if some
implementation in future uses the bits from that space, it would
become a big challenge for operators and their customers to re-address
their p2p inter-router links.
As an implementer you have to assume the existence of prefixes longer
than /64 if not, loopback addresses which are /128s would not exist.
in point of fact regarding /127s we have.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6164
which is about as authoritative as anything gets.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
