Randy,
While you bring up RFC6164, a quick question for you:
Why in the end was it decided that RFC6164 didn't update RFC4291?
At the moment, if I were to be very strict in interpretation (which
I'm not intending to be) then I think this means that RFC6164 only
requires that all routers support /127, but that only /64s are still
formally assignable, seeing I don't think RFC6164 actually says "it is
acceptable within IPv6 addressing architecture to assign /127 for
point-to-point links" and it doesn't fornally update RFC4291.
(As I said, I'm not intending to be that strict, but of course the
other reason for not using /127s at the moment is that some equipment
hasn't implemented RFC6164 yet, which means there can be difficulties
using it right now.)
Regards, David
Sent from my iPhone
On 17/09/2011, at 2:50 AM, Randy Bush randy@psg.com wrote:
I agree with you when it comes to Interconnects, and so on, where
I am
much more conservative, using /112's where a lot of people are using
much larger (64s, etc).
you may want to look at rfc 5952
aiiii! sorry. rfc 6164
randy
policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy