Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-01.txt

[Mark Smith <ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org>]

Hi,

On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 01:18:42 +0930
Mark Smith <ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> "6.2  Subnet topology masking
> 
>       There really is no functional gap here as a centrally assigned
>    pool of addresses in combination with host routes in the IGP is an
>    effective way to mask topology. "
> 
> I'm wondering if the above is actually the case. 
> 
> I think host routes are easy enough to understand from the point of view
> of propagating /128s around within an IGP. 
> 
> What I'm curious about is how the end-nodes are configured and how they
> operate, in particular when they are attached to a broadcast
> multi-access link e.g., an ethernet. Has this operation been discussed or
> described in an ID or RFC that I'm not aware of ?
> 

It looks like a /128 prefix length is not permitted on an interface,
according to draft-ietf-ipv6-addr-arch-v4-04.txt, which I think means
most of the issues I was concerned about described disappear.

I'm still not sure exactly how host routing would work from the
end-nodes point of view, so I'll continue to do some reading. It seems
to me that hiding the network or subnet topology by not grouping IPv6
addresses according to their common data links means that the subnet bit
portion of the address loses its significance when determining whether a
destination address is off or onlink, during Neighbour Discovery.

Thanks,
Mark.