IPv6 network policies

[Ole Troan]

>> note, that the ping pong problem isn't an IPv6 problem as such, the same problem exists with IPv4.
> 
> Absolutely. And for an IPv4 p2p link it seems the most commonly used
> solution is to use /31 on the link.
> 
> For IPv6 it seems to me we have two camps with different philosophies:
> 
> - The ping pong problem *should* be solved in IPv6, and it can be solved
> if the vendors do <X>.
> 
> - The ping pong problem doesn't need to be solved in IPv6 since using
> a /127 works just fine. So let's bless the /127.
> 
> Given that 
> 
>   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipngwg-p2p-pingpong-00
> 
> is from 2001, and nine years later there are still large/important
> vendors that have this problem - is it likely that it *will* be solved
> in the manner suggested by this draft?

the solution in the draft is incorporated into RFC4443. but yes, I share your sentiment.

there seems to be sub-camp suggesting the use of ND "pseudo" address resolution on point to point links too.

cheers,
Ole