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

[Philip Matthews <[e-mail]>]

Just a heads up to everyone that Victor and I have a presentation slot tomorrow for the Design Choices draft, and we plan to have a discussion on what term the WG would like us to use here.

Philip

On 2015-03-24, at 10:39 , Victor Kuarsingh wrote:

> 
> 
> On 2015-03-24 9:52 AM, Metzler, Dan J wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> See below:
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: v6ops [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Victor Kuarsingh
>>> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 8:33 PM
>>> To: Alexandru Petrescu; [e-mail]
>>> Subject: Re: [v6ops] Should we use "unnumbered" in IPv6?
>>> 
>>> All,
>>> 
>>> What's one more email in such an active conversation.  Here area few points
>>> to take note of.
>>> 
>>> - When I suggested "administratively unnumbered", I was intending to find
>>> text which has less imposed (vs just "unnumbered") meaning while attempting
>>> to keep within the spirit of the text in section 2.1.2.
>> I sort of understand where you're coming from, but  I think the addition of "administratively" just modified the confusion, but did not remove it.
>> I think you're trying to equate the situation to something in IPv4 to make it seem more familiar.  In the short term that might have some benefit, but in the long term it seems to lose meaning.
>> I think the term "unnumbered" is what introduces the confusion, simply because it is different with IPv6.
> I totally understand the differences between IPv4 and IPv6.  You are right in a way, in that there are some parallels between IPv4 and IPv6 being drawn (since some parallels still exist, as well as differences).
> 
> I guess the parallel component is the action the administrator (some may call this the sysadmin, or the network admin - all the same to me - the person or tool configuring stuff) takes.  The result is where one of the differences are between IPv4 and IPv6.
>>> - The intention of this text was to describe the configuration choices for links
>>> within a network, which was to apply a ULA/GUA or to not apply a ULA/GUA
>>> (in which case the LL address would be the only one that remains).
>> If you are using "administratively unnumbered" in any way that is not intended to confuse the issue, then I think you can't assume that LL is the only one that remains.  With IPv6, that just means you're leaving it up to the network operator vs the system admin.
> Maybe I missed something here, but we are specifically talking about the network operator / system admin (the subject of the conversation is the actions the person designing (and/or configuration) the network makes.
> 
>> It might be ULA.  It might be GUA.  It might be LL.
> I think this is true and I think this is clear in the text as well.
>>  It depends on what's in the flags in the RA.
> This is true, and using an RA to get a ULA/GUA onto an interface (vs. manual configuration) is just a way to do it (I don't think our draft discusses or recommends on how to accomplish the addressing.
> 
> We point documents like RFC4852 which expand on the methods on how to address stuff (as an example).
>> If that's really what you meant then the assumption that LL address is the only one that remains is simply a flawed assumption, but "Administratively Unnumbered" becomes closer to a reasonable term, other than the fact that "unnumbered" is technically inaccurate.  (And that's probably what people find most confusing.)
> I think we are all open to new terms, but that would likely become subject to further misconceptions unless well defined.  I guess the "adminstatively" part of hte term was to denote "something you do to give it an address".
> 
>> If you really meant LL-only, then "Administratively Unnumbered" is probably not the best term because it doesn't really describe what you meant.
>> 
>> (Do you see how it gets confusing?)
> Well I do understand people's point, irrespective if I agree. To be honest, I am not confused, and when reading the text (as I had noted before) I don't think folks who would seek guidance in such a draft would come away not understanding what the options are, or what the result will be.
> 
> I do agree, that out of context, it can be considered confusing, but I am not considering the use of the word out of context.
> 
>>> - The action in the one case (by the administrator) would be to not apply
>>> addressing (additional) to a link, in which case the result is LL-only.
>> What do you mean by "administrator"?  (System admin or network admin or both)
> The term administrator was to apply to anyone who managers/configures network (was to cover all cases).  A sysadmin and netadmin are just types of administrators.
> 
> Victor K
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>