On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 5:03 AM, Mark Smith < i...@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> wrote:
> I'm happy with using /64s for PPPoE links. However, if the /127 draft is > accepted, then I'd want to be able to take advantage of them on > PPP/PPPoE sessions - if there is an approved mechanism available to > save address space I may as well use it. > Why would you do this as opposed to, say, unnumbered addresses? The draft only specifies /127 for inter-router links. What if there's a host on the other side? And what if whatever is on the other side of the link wants to pass on IPv6 connectivity the connectivity to other hosts in its network? Please don't say that it needs to do NAT66.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
