RFC: Don't use /127 as P-t-P prefix length?

[Pekka Savola]

Hello,

I presented very quickly my draft:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-savola-ipv6-127-prefixlen-01.txt

at 6bone meeting at IETF53:

http://www.6bone.net/ngtrans/minutes/default.htm


There was basically zero time for discussion so I was asked to take this 
to the mailing list.

This is an operational problem, and the workaround or the fix (however you 
can phrase it) is to use basically anything other than /127 for P-t-P 
links.

Use of /127 seems to be very common though, so I'm soliciting opinions 
what should be done about this, e.g.:

- forget about the whole thing, it's their problem!
- informational or BCP individually?
- informational or BCP through ipv6 w.g.?
- discussion added to address architecture draft / coming IPv6 node 
requirements, ... ?
- other thoughts?

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords