On Oct 10, 2014, at 5:04 AM, Baldur Norddahl <[email protected]> wrote:
> NONE of the problems listed in RFC 6752 are a problem with using unnumbered > interfaces. As far as Section 8 goes, you're even worse off than if you were using private IP addresses. And see Section 9. My point is that *analogous* issues arise with unnumbered interfaces. Loopback-only addressing isn't sufficient for troubleshooting purposes and other routine operational activities. > The thing is that we will only use ONE public address for a router. And the > router will be using that address for traceroute, ICMP et al. And therefore > RFC 6752 does not apply. Again, see Section 9. *Analogous* issues arise in networks with unnumbered interfaces. I'm aware that PMTU-D will work with the setup you propose. You might want to take a look at Appendix A, too. It sounds as if there is an unfortunate shortfall in the budget for your organization. Personally, I wouldn't attempt to build and operate a network which required more funding than was made available in order to implement it optimally. Doing things the suboptimal way in IPv4 isn't a valid reason replicate those suboptimalities in IPv6. I wish you luck in troubleshooting an infrastructure full of unnumbered links - I've done it, and it isn't fun. > What I am mostly getting from the responses here are not much useful, other > than a lot of people screaming he his doing something different so he must be > an idiot That is incorrect. You've been told repeatedly that troubleshooting unnumbered links is highly suboptimal; you've merely dismissed those arguments for reasons best known to yourself. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Roland Dobbins <[email protected]> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com> Equo ne credite, Teucri. -- Laocoön
