I have pointed out two documents in my earlier email that explain in long detail why I believe that multi-hop subnets are a really bad idea. The AUTOCONF RFC 5889 presents an architecture for avoiding all these problems by using /128 prefixes. In that regards, a subnet wide flooding would be fairly uninteresting, as it would not go beyond a single router.
Regards Ulrich On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> wrote: > > I would still like an explanation of why "subnet" is the wrong term. > > When would scope-3 would be used such that it would not correspond to the set > of links on which a "/64" (or other size) is used? > > -- > Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works > > > > _______________________________________________ > Roll mailing list > r...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
