IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Autoconf] Unnumbered interfaces

Ryuji Wakikawa <ryuji.wakikawa@gmail.com> Fri, 27 March 2009 00:50 UTC

Return-Path: <ryuji.wakikawa@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: autoconf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: autoconf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5626E28C1FE for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:50:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id J1nPoBofP5yZ for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:50:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com (wf-out-1314.google.com [209.85.200.168]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F1003A6A66 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:50:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 24so998628wfg.31 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:51:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:in-reply-to:subject :references:message-id:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :mime-version:date:cc:x-mailer; bh=Za9Qbl4uxdpsiU47NDBJzkHeO8pF56lBzve8QJdLCv0=; b=IKB1upUUPFKdg9KQL98LMIie/NHrwuRG4wX0Fi9PUfxmhSiMw3MxMA4r9BqHoomnGk O+pn9R6YXmJBeF2C2+MGs/Q4F5v1hJQyB3i750mVoQVmqfLX0W9gm7diN6LNhQvhT1Hb g6Y05IFxt6+8Kz4T8CKJdM9tccp6Gdbspr1Ho=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:in-reply-to:subject:references:message-id:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:date:cc:x-mailer; b=I4rRUeRxcJic11UVxL0suT1FhYTrav5uT81EYleyE6qNFz4q9ajxhz1KyCFy8d+qqC DaXs2tCgixcjIIaMlp5T5FjgIwbiIHW/jDbDKjV4sGlPOSnrO3HIj+upKDuHpNPvXg8x x/BBna1gM3UfZXvKTMoDtiQ0QJhh9sRV9GCnA=
Received: by 10.142.12.14 with SMTP id 14mr618391wfl.120.1238115105323; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:51:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?172.28.177.218? ([67.99.198.2]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 30sm1408233wfg.34.2009.03.26.17.51.42 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:51:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ryuji Wakikawa <ryuji.wakikawa@gmail.com>
To: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <49CC1EFF.4020801@gmail.com>
References: <49CC1EFF.4020801@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <011506FA-2726-405F-B366-7FB873E7104F@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3)
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:51:40 -0700
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3)
Cc: autoconf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Unnumbered interfaces
X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list <autoconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf>, <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/autoconf>
List-Post: <mailto:autoconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf>, <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 00:50:52 -0000

Hi Alex,

First of all, Thanks a lot for taking jabber notes over audio  
streaming!!!

If WG agree to have a new MANET specific usage of an unnumbered  
interface without breaking any IP addressing model,
it should be ok. Of course, only if there is advantage to go for this.

ryuji

On 2009/03/26, at 17:34, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:

> During the meeting there was talk about unnumbered interfaces.   
> Trying to understand them leads to the posted informal Cisco pointer:
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk648/tk362/technologies_tech_note09186a0080094e8d.shtml
>
> And a search at tools.ietf.org leads to RFCs:
>
> CR-LDP, RSVP, ptp-over-LAN link-state, RIPv2 MIB, OSPF/FrameRelay,  
> OSPF multi-area adjacency, GMPLS.  One wouldn't make the AUTOCONF ad- 
> hoc addressing architecture dependent on e.g. OSPF/FrameRelay.
>
> But that's just an opinion of course, and technical advantage could  
> be discussed... e.g. the change of src address was discussed - why  
> is this feature needed?
>
> If we need that feature of change of src address - how could that be  
> achieved without unnumbered interfaces?
>
> Alex
> _______________________________________________
> Autoconf mailing list
> Autoconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email