"Michel Py" <michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us> writes:
Andrius Kasparavicius wrote: And at the end, would I be bad if I will use /127 for point-to-point(tunnels).
VERY bad. Not only there are known issues with doing this, but it violates both RFC2373 and its replacement draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-11.txt. Not respecting IETF _standards_ is not a good idea in any case and at some point people that think they are gods and can have their own standard will have to renumber their entire network.
As you say, the issues are known, and as such we know that they don't affect us. There are a number of advantages of non-/64 for p2p. For example, you can have an easy address allocation scheme like ...:<router number>:<index>:<host id>" which does not require any bookkeeping. That's not possible with /64 addresses. The standard also requires EUI-64 addresses which is clearly not desirable for a number of application. For example, it would be very silly to require a change all your peering sessions just because you change your NIC. So it is obvious that the requirement for EUI-64 cannot be taken too seriously, and consequently the requirement for a /64 seems not convincing either. Robert