On 10/10/14, Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no> wrote:
* Baldur Norddahl
Why do people assign addresses to point-to-point links at all? You can just use a host /128 route to the loopback address of the peer. Saves you the hassle of coming up with new addresses for every link.
Some people think the benefit is worth the hassle.
Why do you need those host routes?
network management, logging, troubleshooting.. you need at least one loopback with a global address.
Most IPv6 IGPs work just fine without global addresses or host routes.
Look at the discussion of the draft - there seemed >>to me<< a clear consensus that using only link local addressing was a Bad Idea. I thought the caveats section made the draft worth publishing, but this bit was left out: And while the caveats hint at it, there's also an operational complexity burden that isn't called out - the ping and NMS/discovery limitations also apply to human operators troubleshooting faults and attempting to understand a deployed topology. LLDP and NDP add a layer of indirection in identifying what devices should be adjacent to a given interface, and only work when there is operational state available and links are up (whereas GUAs on interconnected devices can be compared by configuration alone, telling you what's supposed to be there). Erik Muller so the draft isn't as clear as I'd hoped regarding the caveats :( Best Regards, Lee