At 01:33 AM 3/11/2011, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 10, 2011, at 11:22 PM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
On Mar 11, 2011, at 2:02 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Frankly, unless you have parallel links, there isn't a definite need to even number PtoP links for IPv6. Every thing you need to do with an interface specific address on a PtoP link can be done with link local.
Which is why IP unnumbered caught on so well in IPv4-land, heh?
There's a HUGE difference between IP unnumbered and link-local.
Frankly, absent parallel links, there was a lot to be said for IP unnumbered and I think that if people had better understood the implications of where and when it was a good vs. bad idea and tied it properly to loopbacks instead of $RANDOM_INTERFACE, it might have caught on better.
Owen
Is anyone else considering only using link local for their PtoP links? I realized while deploying our IPv6 infrastructure that OSPFv3 uses the link-local address in the routing table and than the global address, so if I want to have a routing table which makes sense, I need to statically assign a global address AND the link-local address. Then I realized, why even assign a global in the first place? Traceroutes replies end up using the loopback. BGP will use loopbacks. So is there any obvious harm in this approach that I'm missing? -James