In your previous mail you wrote: On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 05:09:29PM +0100, Francis Dupont wrote:
In your previous mail you wrote:
We use /124s for tunnels, which avoid the problems from Pekka's draft
=> what is the standard which defines a /124 for a link?
What is the standard that prohibits doing this? => draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-11.txt which is already adopted and should be published ASAP (and RFC 2373 if you believed only in available RFC).
but there is no need for a /64 here. => there is no choice in the standard: all prefixes on a link are /64s.
Please quote the RFC that *mandates* /64s for all links. As far as I remember, it's a SHOULD for multiaccess links, and voluntary for ptp links. => the address architecture draft (and RFC 2373) uses "are required". This is a MUST and the only discussion about it was whether it should be in the address architecture or spread between the "IPv6 over foo" documents. Regards Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr