>>> And sorry if I sound like a broken record, but I would like the ability
to
>>> set up a router-router link with less than a full /64 allocated to it,
at
>>> least in the ad-hoc case.Not sure who said this part. My question is: for a router/router link, even if it's really ethernet rather than PPP, why wouldn't one use *just* link-local addresses? While I have encountered a few OSPFv3 implementations that wouldn't run over link-local addresses, the vendors admitted that it was a bug. (That equipment got obsoleted due to 512K limit on v4 routing slots before that got fixed though) If there something in HNCP that would require router/router links to be numbered? Or is it a case of, one just doesn't *know* that there will never be end-hosts on the link. If one requires manual intervention to allocate a prefix longer than /64 to a link, then one could also just say it was a router-only link. -- Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
