I agree with Hemant. Speaking as another router vendor, we use CIDR for Ipv6.
Routes on all 128-bits are not an issue.
/Olivier
> -Original Message-
> From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Hemant Singh (shemant)
> Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 10:24
I support this as well.
/Olivier
> -Original Message-
> From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Joel M. Halpern
> Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2010 4:01 AM
> To: Brian Haberman
> Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Call for Adoption:draft-kohno-ipv6-prefixlen-p
Juniper also disables the subnet anycast for /127s. We are very aware of this
issue and how our customers are using /127s (hence the /127 draft).
Regards,
Olivier
> -Original Message-
> From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Fernando Gont
> Sent: Tuesd
>
> > FWIW, "Packet may be forwarded back on the received interface" is
> > actually, AFAIK, used in certain PE routerscenarios where you ping
> > yourself over a p2p link.
>
> Is the echo request/response really forwarded back on the received
> interface? (isn't the *response* that is forwarded
It is clear that there is one more action done on the packet with RFC4443. But
this has no impact on shipping ASIC based routers. It is difficult to say
though if some smaller routers could be impacted.
Another problem with RFC4443 is that it is breaking some application. There
could be cases w
I believe there was some discussions in the past to get such new class added.
Regards,
Olivier Vautrin
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
