North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: It's Ars Tech's turn to bang the IPv4 exhaustion drum
On 20 aug 2008, at 21:33, Crist Clark wrote:
No, that's my point. On a true point-to-point link, there is only one other address on the link. That's what point-to-point means.
For example, on the IPv4 ends gif(4) tunnel in my previous message,
Note that this interface doesn't _have_ any IPv4 addresses: the IPv4 addresses that you see are the tunnel endpoints.
However, the IPv6 addresses do what you say: there is a local one and a remote one and they don't share a subnet. Obviously it's possible to do this, but in my opinion, this is just an implementation variation, not the natural state of point-to-point links. It makes much more sense to have one set of behaviors that applies to all interfaces.
And what is a point-to-point link, anyway? In theory gigabit ethernet is CSMA/CD, but I don't think anyone ever bothered to implement that, in practice it's point-to-point on layer 1, but layer 2 is point-to- multipoint...