IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Should we use "unnumbered" in IPv6?

Mark ZZZ Smith <markzzzsmith@yahoo.com.au> Mon, 23 March 2015 23:08 UTC

Return-Path: <markzzzsmith@yahoo.com.au>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 967FD1A0187 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 16:08:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.498
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.498 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_REPLYTO=0.999, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iv2ILbt3cnux for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 16:08:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nm7.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com (nm7.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com [98.139.212.166]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18C871A0218 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 16:08:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com.au; s=s2048; t=1427152086; bh=8PoSBC9oGVI84pVwKr8zaPXjH31d2iFh7jY3hOMiBgQ=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Subject; b=tilUxt3e4/AFzGKLED/A60QQsC2oYiGjHa+cbjU4Cprmh8H5ZApsKQHvFx9LAHbM9sWq6pPmRBUrHaruV92i4jcv22kMcaO/+5DN3sjJfCIi7Lz1u2bkw6Pk37ytDxzkXatAqCTiRODsbOuqjNCpbydkujpFJcbTY6LRrguEqIb/rRvH8V7ACvX41+6GTjXgRA+C8lHRmEF9INUQ5rJzpJ1BWSDbbMq7x/n25foShJH9beF0WO7p2EEDe2O6flHLYB66uUqn3Y1FFfLaM75H5DspbTJdUqVLKjIQG+6CauF3p8NdtcTF7oN1ASSlZdrHrwlue+V67VypWEoGNIeB4A==
Received: from [66.196.81.171] by nm7.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 23 Mar 2015 23:08:06 -0000
Received: from [98.139.212.192] by tm17.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 23 Mar 2015 23:08:06 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1001.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 23 Mar 2015 23:08:06 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 156237.41485.bm@omp1001.mail.bf1.yahoo.com
X-YMail-OSG: HUpQYrQVM1mIeBYveou3iKj8TO2bFA.NCGWPBETa5cbcBC7Q0sdNWodYUF.2D7E EnmyKtUAR6ojj2SLQOVC.XANlKLhMQBqcMWfkHbJ5i1gAKhsGK_09_0aWRtSsWQuB6.afP5Pi4XQ ugqJ8IbTNACDNGROrF5owwF9rRgmWARuXrwiX8kDXOT28EYJaTLD_RQxUtQLTW__0ogIxKQezNBt adijPb6C7eR1WpcRgh2OT2jBdbPKhaVP13fZz2SNdsB3wAsHmjUKP6WrMRnfagfnhLgq6qPeNHJb tlCRD_BUEQuVNZVII9rRBJo68y4bCbY.ye5KbAQ3nYokfQVpsbDYBvBDsa0Mv01oPOEeYd1CdYbL z9mrZs7zZzqLS_WJMSVm.8JmyuQHIeHt1ox1bRSXjpHLD28tlfAik8HT_BFCzZ5U_EsF66oz1uHR eKU1IVuZTntBfhEDWrOaYA72eTgNLFnw629gqv3.u9I4WDREUPOvb3ow.E2oCEhR6RxU64CpPFUG QvqTTakHlQ9m.2w5DFA--
Received: by 76.13.26.136; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 23:08:05 +0000
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 23:07:07 +0000
From: Mark ZZZ Smith <markzzzsmith@yahoo.com.au>
To: Victor Kuarsingh <victor@jvknet.com>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <2089269939.25823.1427152027428.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <551005BD.40501@jvknet.com>
References: <551005BD.40501@jvknet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_25820_1379475242.1427152027422"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/GrFBRLbMXXDZCJFOipXHMi3P_eM>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Should we use "unnumbered" in IPv6?
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Mark ZZZ Smith <markzzzsmith@yahoo.com.au>
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 23:08:20 -0000

I still think 'link-local only' is better, as it is very explicitly saying what the addressing scheme is. There is no and cannot be any ambiguity. 
I think 'administratively unnumbered' is close to the inverse of that and less descriptive and specific.




      From: Victor Kuarsingh <victor@jvknet.com>
 To: v6ops@ietf.org 
 Sent: Monday, 23 March 2015, 23:23
 Subject: Re: [v6ops] Should we use "unnumbered" in IPv6?
   
Eric/All,

What about the term "administratively unnumbered?"  This could be 
defined as an interface where the network administrator did not 
specifically number the interface, but does not preclude it from having 
an address at all (i.e. LL address).

regards,

Victor K



On 2015-03-10 5:15 PM, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote:
> Philip
>
> In the legacy world of IPv4, unnumbered actually means using a global IPv4
> address 'stolen' from another interface.
>
> In the current world of IPv6, every interface has at least a link-local
> address which can be used for IGP and other purposes (see RFC 7404) which
> is NOT equivalent (IMHO) to 'unnumbered interface'
>
> So, I am afraid that you should use another working (albeit cumbersome)
>
> -éric
>
> On 10/03/15 15:52, "Philip Matthews" <philip_matthews@magma.ca> wrote:
>
>> Just want to get some direct feedback from the WG on the use of the terms
>> "unnumbered interface" and "unnumbered link" in IPv6.
>>
>> Mark Smith, in some comments on the Design Choices draft , has said that
>> he prefers the terms "interface with only link-local address" or "link
>> with only link-local addresses" instead.  See the thread with title "I-D
>> Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-design-choices-04.txt".
>>
>> What does the WG think?  Should we use the "unnumbered" terms, or should
>> we use just the "... with only link-local address" terms?  Is it
>> acceptable to mix the two sets of terms?
>>
>> Philip
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> v6ops mailing list
>> v6ops@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops


> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
v6ops@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email