Re: IPv6 address assignment for strictly point-to-point links and Device Loopbacks

Hi Joel,

RFC 6164 overriding 3627 seems logical
However, I am looking more from perspective of 5375

Also If one has to "go read the discussion on 6164" to understand it - this is itself an indication that 6164 has not done a good job of providing a conclusive recommendation on use of prefixes with subnet lengths longer than /64

If 6164 was going to override recommendations of 5375, the least one would expect is the RFC 6164 to document the reasons why it felt that the additional considerations provided in section B.2.4  B.2.6 and B.2.7 of RFC5375 are to be ignored or don't hold true anymore- this reasoning should have been made part of the RFC6164...

Instead the 6164 provided reasons around ping-pong issue and neighbor cache issue - both of which appear weak as one is resolved thru 4443 and the other can be resolved thru feature enhancements in the neighbor caching process...

Usman

On 27/09/2012, at 3:10 PM, joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> wrote:

> On 9/26/12 9:47 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>>> There is clearly two set of recommendations over the same addressing
>>> scenario which I am only trying to clarify with the IETF community.
> There aren't really. The world moved on from 3627 and the scenario described in 6164 represents both observed reality and expectations.
>> no.  but please go do whatever you want in your network and stop trying
>> to stir a long cold pot
>> 
>> randy
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> ipv6@ietf.org
>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
> 