> I agree with Dave Thaler from yesterday’s discussion in 6man related to the > /127 draft. In the two router scenario for /127, each router is off-link to > the other and then one has nothing to bother about for anycast address. > Folks are also encouraged to read the IPv6 Subnet Model RFC where off-link > has been clarified - RFC 5942. > > So now is there anything left to specify for this /127 issue that needs to be > described in draft-kohno-ipv6-prefixlen-p2p?
my view is entirely different. the 64 bit boundary is a suggested policy and not normative. IPv6 is not classful. two routers on a /127 are on-link to each other. two /128s would make them off-link. a off-link node cannot make any assumption on the use of subnet-router anycast addresses, reserved anycast space or the validity of u/g bits. I support adopting the draft as a working group item now. cheers, Ole -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
