Hi, On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 05:05:44PM +0000, Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk wrote:
Please excuse me for butting in - I'm a long time lurker on this list.
You're more than welcome, because it brings up an interesting point... [..]
OK, I stand corrected, RFC 2373 actually doesn't differenciate between multiaccess and point-to-point links, and requires /64s on every single link (section 2.4 and 2.5.1). [..]
It's an odd feature of that RFC that it's published as Informational rather then Proposed Standard, and the only reference to the RFC 2119 terms "MUST", "MUST NOT" etc. is in the Introduction. It specifically does not say:
"Interface IDs are REQUIRED to be 64 bits long and to be constructed in IEEE EUI-64 format [EUI64]."
Thanks for pointing that out. So we're not violating established internet standards here (by using /124s) and we're not going to end in network hell. At least not due to this :-) I've received a few more comments on this in the mean time. For example, some people like to encode router ID and link number in the addressing scheme for point-to-point links, like this: <64bit-prefix>:<router-id>:<link-number>:0:000x/124 which is *really* handy for quick and painless address management. Doing that with a /64 per link (putting router-id and link number further to the left) means "waste a /32", which is certainly not compatible with the current RIPE policies... Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 56029 (55671) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299