[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: http://www.gnupg.org/
Main Index |
Thread Index |