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
- From: Ian Mason
- Date: Sat Aug 23 21:41:27 2008
On 21 Aug 2008, at 09:09, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
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,
gif0: flags=8051<UP,POINTOPOINT,RUNNING,MULTICAST> metric 0 mtu 1280
tunnel inet 24.6.175.101 --> 72.52.104.74
inet6 fe80::200:24ff:feca:91b4%gif0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x7
inet6 2001:470:1f04:2fc::2 --> 2001:470:1f04:2fc::1
prefixlen 128
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...
1000BASE-PX10 and 1000BASE-PX20 are both point to multipoint at layer 1.
|