Subject: RE: back on track? [RE: Review of "Use of /127 Prefix Length BetweenRouters Considered Harmful"]

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 21:54:10 -0700

> Pekka Savola wrote:
> In addition to using a different prefix length, one could
> also use only link-local addresses or "two /128's".

I don't like the "or two /128's" part of this. Link-local addresses are
not /128s.

Link-local addresses are technically ok. Actually, I think that they
should be #2 in the list of options. In a large network, they are a
troubleshooting headache but in a small network there is nothing to say
against them.

Michel.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 09:19:57 +0300 (EEST)

> I don't like the "or two /128's" part of this. Link-local addresses are

Note that link-locals and two /128's are two separate cases.

"two /128's" means an implementation (like KAME) where you can do this 
without link-local addresses.

Obviously the wording is a bit off.  But I couldn't figure out how to say 
it without getting into static routes or whatnot.  Any ideas?

> troubleshooting headache but in a small network there is nothing to say

I've considered putting link-locals only in solutions 1), more or less 
equal with /64.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords