Hi Lorenzo, I'm not sure I fully grasp all the details of the debate about Babel here, but here is an RFC recommending /128 are the way to go on similar "links". https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5889 And if you want to read more about why these recommendations came about, read this: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-baccelli-intarea-adhoc-wireless-com-00.txt Best, Emmanuel
On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 4:10 AM, Lorenzo Colitti <lore...@google.com> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 2:46 AM, Dave Taht <dave.t...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Then I can arbitrarily give myself a real /128 ipv6 address from some >> range elsewhere on my source specific routed network - not even adding >> an ipv6 address to the router in question... >> >> and it automagically transits the network in that direction, even the >> hops that have no or a ula-only ipv6 address. The only thing this >> bugs is traceroute, it is transparent to other applications. >> > > Why would you want to use a /128? Don't you have enough address space for > a /64 per link? > > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > home...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet > >
_______________________________________________ Babel-users mailing list Babel-users@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/babel-users