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

[Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>]

On Jun 27, 2005, at 9:52 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
> 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.

For the record, a /32 is now permitted on an interface in IPv4. This 
permits allocation of such to a loopback interface, for example. It may 
be worthwhile to find the use cases for that and ask whether they apply 
to IPv6.

> 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.

More generally, when addresses cannot be summarized, summarization 
functions break down. Your friendly neighborhood ISP will have issues 
with this.

Attachment: PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part