On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > Such addresses are link-locals, of link local scope only. A link-local
> > IPv6 address is awfully difficult to remember and type for all of your
> > possible links.
> > The only reasonable value user could supply is a global address.
> So what? I do not see connection to previous. You want to live with global
> addresses as nexthop?
Yes, I dare to say that they're a requirement.
(But to be clear, when I talk about "global nexthop", I'm only interested
in nexthops which are on-link. That is, if you have prefix
3FFF:FFFF:A:B::/64, setting 3FFE:FFFF:A:B::1 would be ok, but
3FFE:FFFF:F00:BA::1 would not *have* to work.)
> OK. But I remember you have spoken something quite
> opposite yesterday.
I don't recall that. I think I was only suggesting that ONE possible way
of implementing it (which I wouldn't think is the best one) is make that
the user space tools' problem: i.e. make them resolve a globally addressed
nexthop to a link-local nexthop.
> > Redundant information can be ignored. This is not computer science
> > theory, removing everything which is not directly relevant. The use of
> > the same representation for the next-hop (2002:F00:BA::x) as an address
> > (2002:BA:F00:y) is the only logical, user-friendly way.
> What a bullshit... The second is address of host "x". The first is supposed
> to be address of host F00:BA, whatever it is. Probably, you can decrypt
> this only because poisoned by computer science. :-)
You read too much to in what I wrote (or maybe I wrote too much :-) --
what I mean is that 6to4 addresses have a very specific format. It's
completely illogical and unfriendly to the users to require use different
formats when they use 6to4 addresses as nexthops and "normal" addresses.
> Just to complete discussion, let's stay on format fe80::A.B.C.D, for example.
> Unlike anothers it is 100% logically clean. :-)
I can't disagree with you there; it's simple, but it's NOT what
specifications use and the *users* want and need to use.
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings