IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Thu, 26 March 2015 22:58 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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 9AD591A1B20 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 15:58:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.961
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.961 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 eUblKpSX1HZK for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 15:58:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5543F1A1B12 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 15:58:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id BF926A1; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 23:58:34 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1427410714; bh=wV0OZg6dw0kBNtOnhAC/P9atqrU+hYKFelrUdgiVwjg=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=oRFLIVBvRhFl4MizJnUOeFa8VohtM2LML4Qe3PNlesRWbFG9wFmmDjgfWBiHs60+9 Df2s9EzBAVNXtVkQCZ+2XGS/W6jtmvQoN7ci1fm1+dROvXjhc3J4clx5cN0wKE+3Hq 9y9Lvo9kdBSLY4HF0fg6T2L3v6hcSn5J47x+1YyU=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id B700A9F; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 23:58:34 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 23:58:34 +0100
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <551483F6.4050103@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1503262358000.20507@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <40CC9375-B748-4A37-B9E5-FEE3003C1DC4@magma.ca> <20150326085644.47d1e85a@echo.ms.redpill-linpro.com> <D1395F97.8D8AF%Lee.Howard@twcable.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832E2A5C5@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <D139BAD6.8D9A0%Lee.Howard@twcable.com> <9F564C11-AB8E-40E4-A04B-293CF3DB0E68@delong.com> <C4058764-03EB-494F-86BE-87CA42E3EBE5@magma.ca> <551483F6.4050103@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/sngjdDfeC_pM-gujKWZeqFLMfFc>
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Should we use "unnumbered" in IPv6?
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
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: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 22:58:39 -0000

On Thu, 26 Mar 2015, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:

> One can't say an interface is a link-local-only interface because 
> there's at least the MAC address on it as well.

MAC address is at L2, we're talking L3 here.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email