Re: ping-pong phenomenon with p2p links & /127 prefixes

[Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>]

Jeroen Massar wrote:

>> P.S.: This fix doesn't prevent the use of /127s (it's orthogonal),
> 
> Unless you configure two /128's pointing to the remote side, which will
> then thus not be 'on-link for neighbor discovery, the little thing
> called the subnet anycast address will make sure that a /127 ptp simply
> does not work, unless you have a platform which disables the subnet
> anycast address of course.
[...]

For the most part, i was trying to make it clear that I wasn't asking
about the fix in RFC 4443 from the point-of-view of "the ping-pong issue
is already fixed in RFC 4443... we don't need /127 prefixes!". (i.e.,
I'm not against /127 prefixes... actually, I support the idea).

But I'm still interested in knowing what's the downside of the fix in
RFC 4443 that I cited in my original post. Does it really kill performance?

Thanks!

Kind regards,
-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@acm.org
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1