[107036] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: It's Ars Tech's turn to bang the IPv4 exhaustion drum
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Iljitsch van Beijnum)
Wed Aug 20 14:59:33 2008
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
To: Crist Clark <Crist.Clark@globalstar.com>
In-Reply-To: <48AC0144.8C45.0097.0@globalstar.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:57:46 +0200
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On 20 aug 2008, at 20:34, Crist Clark wrote:
> On a "true" P-to-P link, there is no netmask, no? A netmask is a
> concept that applies to broadcast media, like Ethernet. Even if
> you only have two hosts on an Ethernet link, it's not really
> P-to-P in the strict sense.
An interface needs a prefix length (subnet mask for those of us stuck
in the '90s) so the system knows which addresses are directly
connected through the interface in question. Whether the link is point-
to-point, broadcast or NBMA doesn't matter for that purpose.
> But as for how ND works over a P-to-P, the FreeBSD stack seems
> to be a little odd.
[...]
> But despite all of that, it all works pretty sweetly.
There have been compatibility issues with PPP for IPv6 in the past
because some implementations would do ND and others wouldn't...
