/127 between routers?

[Alan Batie]

On 1/7/10 5:31 AM, michael.dillon at bt.com wrote:

> Yes, yes and yes again. Keep it simple and don't worry about waste because
> to date, we haven't really got a definition of "waste" for IPv6.

I would suggest that if we don't want to suddenly discover that
definition, we don't completely abandon the notion either.  We have the
breathing room to make things convenient, but it's not infinite, and
it's not hard to chew up vast amounts of space "organizing".  Long
prefixes for infrastructure connections make a lot of sense to me...


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5280 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/attachments/20100107/0e24bba1/attachment.bin