Jeroen Massar wrote: >> P.S.: This fix doesn't prevent the use of /127s (it's orthogonal), > > Unless you configure two /128's pointing to the remote side, which will > then thus not be 'on-link for neighbor discovery, the little thing > called the subnet anycast address will make sure that a /127 ptp simply > does not work, unless you have a platform which disables the subnet > anycast address of course. [...]
For the most part, i was trying to make it clear that I wasn't asking about the fix in RFC 4443 from the point-of-view of "the ping-pong issue is already fixed in RFC 4443... we don't need /127 prefixes!". (i.e., I'm not against /127 prefixes... actually, I support the idea). But I'm still interested in knowing what's the downside of the fix in RFC 4443 that I cited in my original post. Does it really kill performance? Thanks! Kind regards, -- Fernando Gont e-mail: ferna...@gont.com.ar || fg...@acm.org PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
