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

[Mark Smith <ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org>]

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 09:55:48 -0400
Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> wrote:

> 
> On Aug 23, 2010, at 9:17 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 14:11:04 +0200 (CEST)
> > sthaug@nethelp.no wrote:
> > 
> >>> These mechanisms are applicable to any type of link, would preserve the
> >>> simplicity of universal 64 bit IIDs and the other benefits of them e.g.
> >>> CGAs, as well as avoiding the ping-pong problem.
> >> 
> >> IMHO, the "universality" of 64 bit IIDs went down the drain the moment
> >> router vendors allowed longer than 64 bit netmasks to be configured.
> >> 
> > 
> > So how does that prevent those prefix lengths being changed to /64?
> 
> Because you would then end up with overlapping address space that is unreachable in a production deployment.
> 

Not necessarily. If I were to deploy /127s, I'd be allocating /64s to
the links.

> But that would be an operational item and not an standards body item?
> 

This has been cross posted to v6ops.

> - Jared