/127 between routers?

[michael.dillon at bt.com]

>> The ARIN wiki 
>> (http://www.getipv6.info/index.php/IPv6_Addressing_Plans)
>> encourages this kind of address plan.

> It's a shame that that document doesn't provide a link to "RFC4291
> - IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture", or any of it's ancestors
(RFC3513,
>  RFC2373, RFC1884) . I think it should be referencing them, stating
what the
>  official IPv6 addressing architecture model is, and stating why it is
>  recommending differently to it. It should also provide a link to
"RFC5375 -
>  IPv6 Unicast Address Assignment Considerations".

Actually, the page states quite prominently why it does not follow the
RFCs,
in the Note near the beginning. And it does have a link to RFC 5375.

> The question is, which of those two has the least risk of devolving
into the
> corresponding 3. or 4? As the fundamental and authoritative design
documents
> for IPv6 (i.e. the RFCs, not books, wiki-pages or vendor
recommendations 
> - they are all derived or should be derived from the RFCs),

In a perfect world, the RFCs would be done first, and then people would
build networks according to the RFCs. But in reality, the RFCs are never
done, and often later RFCs incorporate good ideas that are brough to the
table by implementers and network operators. The ARIN wiki attempts to
collect the general consensus of IPv6 network operators as they build
their
FIRST PHASE of the IPv6 Internet. It will all evolve and change, and
when
it does, the set of RFCs describing IPv6 will have changed as well.

-- Michael Dillon