Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 10:24:41 +1030
From: Mark Smith <nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org>> > Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 00:40:41 +1030
> > From: Mark Smith <nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org>
> >
> >
> > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-prefixlen-p2p-00.txt
> > >
> >
> > Drafts are drafts, and nothing more, aren't they?
>
> Drafts are drafts. Even most RFCs are RFCs and nothing more.No, drafts are documents that can be submitted by anybody, and can say
anything, where as RFCs have been through an IETF evaluation process.> Only a
> handful have ever been designated as "Standards". I hope this becomes
> one of those in the hope it will be taken seriously. (It already is by
> anyone with a large network running IPv6.)
>
> The point is to READ the draft arguments and see why /127s are the right
> way to address P2P circuits.I suggest you search the v6ops mailing list, as I've read it multiple
times, including all revisions, and have pointed out multiple issues
with it.> Also, you might note the contributors to the
> draft. They are people well know on this list who have real, honest to
> goodness operational experience in running networks and really understand
> that a /64 on a P2P connection is a serious security problem.As do I. You can see my analysis of the issue, and how I think it
should be fixed properly, not mitigated for one type of link at the
following URLs.
I don't entirely agree with your arguments, but the approach looks, at
first glance, to be quite interesting and could quite possibly fix the
problem. I'll need to digest it a bit better.
Have you or someone else authored a draft on this proposal? In the
meantime, I still support /127s for P2P links.