Hi,
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 07:57:04PM -0500, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Mar 25, 2014, at 7:06 PM, Randy Bush <[email protected]> wrote:
> > for those who seem not to have followed the ops discussions on 1918
> > links, this how operators think
>
> That's better than the previous response, but still doesn't communicate a
> compelling issue. You're statically configuring IP addresses on the /124;
> that's no easier or harder than statically configuring IP addresses
> link-locally.
>
> I don't mean to say that you are wrong?just that you're not giving us much to
> work with.
If you go back, I have commented on that draft that we'll never ever go
link-local-only, because the drawbacks of not being able to specifically
ping one particular interface from the management system, and not having
traceroute tell me on which exact path my packets are flowing are
not acceptable. YMMV on this, of course.
I don't particulary object to having a RFC out there that says "it can
be done, but this is just one option, and drawbacks exist" - which the
text does. I just won't ever *do* that.
Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
_______________________________________________
OPSEC mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
