Randy, Maz spoke to me at IETF 78 and told me they want to future proof since they found one small router company's router having changed code behavior between an old to new release. All I was trying to bring out is his comment to me to the mailer. Thereafter since a discussion started in 6man on how to take care of this anycast problem with /127 on routers, we were discussing internals of a router. I understand that all you care about is not break the /127 on p2p links. It's fine by me to stop discussing internals, especially since our Cisco routers work fine for /127 and also for anycast.
Hemant -----Original Message----- From: Randy Bush [mailto:ra...@psg.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 10:25 PM To: Hemant Singh (shemant) Cc: sth...@nethelp.no; adur...@juniper.net; dtha...@wollive.windowsmedia.com.akadns.net; ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Re: 6man discussion on /127 document @ IETF78 > The SP's from Japan I spoke with at the IETF 78 told me they want please do not speak for operators > to future-proof their network. future-proof == adding crap we do not understand or need > they say, what if router vendors in future change their code to start > anycast processing with a /127 configured. not quite. what kawamucho, maz, i, ... said was that we did not want vendors to break /127 on p2p links. we did not enumerate how the vendors might do that. randy -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
