[afnog] /127 ??

[Christopher LILJENSTOLPE]

Greetings,

	This was just discussed at IETF76 in Hiroshima.  There are some  
compelling reasons to go with /127's (specifically the "ping-pong  
fault"  However, it's not been adopted yet as an IETF work item.  If  
you are interested in discussing it (or lurking) turn into the v6ops  
mailing list at the ietf.

	Chris

On Nov 16, 2009, at 7:38 PM, Frank Habicht wrote:

> Hi,
>
> just trying to formalise a plan.
> (maybe should stick with unformalised ones)
>
> For real point-to-point links, that are real guaranteed to remain so,
> like POS or serial, ...
> a /127 seems attractive especially since a Japanese colleague[1] once
> found that with /126 one can get into traffic reflection  
> escalations...
> IIRC.
>
> Now Google and/or I*TF confused me with an ietf draft with "127" in  
> the
> title that ........... *could* be outdated.....?
>
> So I thought I could ask my hundreds of friends on AfNOG:
>
> apart from the obvious possibilities like /64 and /112, what do you  
> use
> and what pros and cons you see for /126 vs /127
>
> Thanks,
> Frank
>
> PS: seems i have just found my answer already, but the list should
> benefit ;-)
> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-kohno-ipv6-prefixlen-p2p-00.txt
> is in favour of /127
> strangely i can't get to www.ietf.org, so had to use Google-cache...
> Ok, seeing the authors listed I have no further questions[2].
>
>
> [1] i don't have the name and don't remember where presentation was  
> made.
> [2] apart from the remark that this ID will have to get better in  
> PageRank.
>
> _______________________________________________
> afnog mailing list
> http://afnog.org/mailman/listinfo/afnog
>

---
李柯睿
Check my PGP key here:
https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.asc

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://afnog.org/pipermail/afnog/attachments/20091116/b226808d/attachment-0002.htm>