> Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 00:40:41 +1030 > From: Mark Smith <na...@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org> > > On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 12:31:22 +0100 > Randy Bush <ra...@psg.com> wrote: > > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-prefixlen-p2p-00.txt > > > > Drafts are drafts, and nothing more, aren't they?
Drafts are drafts. Even most RFCs are RFCs and nothing more. Only a handful have ever been designated as "Standards". I hope this becomes one of those in the hope it will be taken seriously. (It already is by anyone with a large network running IPv6.) The point is to READ the draft arguments and see why /127s are the right way to address P2P circuits. Also, you might note the contributors to the draft. They are people well know on this list who have real, honest to goodness operational experience in running networks and really understand that a /64 on a P2P connection is a serious security problem. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: ober...@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634 Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751
