+1 -----Original Message----- From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of sth...@nethelp.no Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 12:24 AM To: i...@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org Cc: v6...@ops.ietf.org; ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Re: ping-pong phenomenon with p2p links & /127 prefixes
> And all you'll end up with is IPv4 with bigger addresses. You really > should catch up with the useful features of protocols that were > designed in the late 80s / early 90s, like IPX, Appletalk, DECNet and > CLNS. For me "more addresses" is the *only* justification for IPv6. All the other "useful" features are either uninteresting or even *unwanted*. I'm sort of okay with RA on customer links (though I would much rather have a more featureful DHCPv6). For my backbone links RA is simply out of the picture, not even interesting to discuss. The "failover" capabilities of IPv6 with RA I would much rather solve with HSRP/VRRP. etc. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
