tech-net archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: v6 vs gif

On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 11:18:07AM -0500, der Mouse wrote:
> > Non /64 prefix lengths is contrary to du jure standard for prefixes
> > in 2000::/3.  (rfc4291 section 2.5.4)
> Oh, ouch.  That's just insane.  That certainly will be one RFC I'll be
> ignoring (well, that I'll continue to ignore).  Didn't the v6 people
> learn _anything_ from the breakdown of v4 address classes?!
> > De facto reality is a completely different matter.  There is a
> > notable amount of operational resistence to /64 on p2p links.
> What would it even _mean_?


There are a lot of things out there that build on the flexibility of 
a de-facto guaranteed /64 - e.g. cryptographically generated addresses
and the privacy stuff. Treating your connection as a LAN basically means
that all that stuff works, too, even on a p2p link. 

Of course, for a transport link far away from source and destination 
of packets, this doesn't matter. But those don't even need more than 
link-local addresses *for the link*, if they insist to save on /64's.

seal your e-mail:

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index