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

Le 26/03/2015 17:07, Philip Matthews a écrit :
> Indeed, there seemed to be a strong consensus for #2 in the WG session
> yesterday.
>
> To address Owen's comment, our (the authors) intention was to have an
> adjective phrase that could be applied to an interface or a link. As in
> "Interface X is a link-local-only interface" or  "Would you shutdown the
> link-local-only interface?".

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

You could say: don't ever shutdown the interface which doesnt have a 
global address on it, because it has at least one link-local address on it.

Alex

>
> The only problem is that I don't know what phrase we are going to use
> for the converse. The draft currently talks about "numbered" vs
> "unnumbered" interfaces -- if I replace the latter with
> "link-local-only" then I am unsure what to use for the former.  Sigh ...
>
> Philip
>
> On 2015-03-26, at 14:53 , Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> Limited to those choices, I would pick number 2 as well. However, as
>> stated previously, I prefer to remove the word interface as it really
>> isn’t applicable.
>>
>> Owen
>>
>>> On Mar 26, 2015, at 11:35 , Howard, Lee <lee.howard@twcable.com
>>> <mailto:lee.howard@twcable.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/26/15, 8:53 AM, "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com
>>> <mailto:Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> We seemed to have rough consensus on link-local-address-only.
>>>>
>>>> The consensus alternative I recall seeing was "link-local-only" (three
>>>> words separated by two dashes).
>>>
>>> You're right. I abbreviated to LLA-only in my notes, but these were the
>>> options in Philip's slides:
>>> 1.³unnumbered interface²
>>> 2.³link-local-only interface²
>>> 3.³administratively unnumbered interface²
>>> 4.³locally-numbered interface²
>>> 5.³link-numbered interface²
>>> 6.³administratively link-local only interface²
>>>
>>>
>>> I heard many people say, "Number two."
>>>
>>> Lee
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks - Fred
>>>> fred.l.templin@boeing.com <mailto:fred.l.templin@boeing.com>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: v6ops [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Howard, Lee
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 5:04 AM
>>>>> To: Tore Anderson; Philip Matthews
>>>>> Cc: v6ops list
>>>>> Subject: Re: [v6ops] Should we use "unnumbered" in IPv6?
>>>>>
>>>>> We seemed to have rough consensus on link-local-address-only.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lee
>>>>>
>>>>> On 3/26/15, 2:56 AM, "Tore Anderson" <tore@fud.no
>>>>> <mailto:tore@fud.no>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> * Philip Matthews <philip_matthews@magma.ca
>>>>>> <mailto:philip_matthews@magma.ca>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I didn't quite catch on the Meetecho if a final decision was reached
>>>>>> yesterday, but in case not here's my suggestions:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Link-scoped (IPv6) interface
>>>>>>
>>>>>> vs
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Global-scoped (IPv6) interface
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The global scope includes the link scope, so the latter wouldn't mean
>>>>>> "no link local address".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (Or maybe it's better to say "globally" and "scope", my English isn't
>>>>>> good enough to know which of these nuances would be 100% correct.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tore
>>>>>> who finally succumbed to the bikeshedding temptation
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> v6ops mailing list
>>>>>> v6ops@ietf.org <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable
>>>>> proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or
>>>>> subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is
>>>>> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is
>>>>> addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you
>>>>> are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying,
>>>>> or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this
>>>>> E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have
>>>>> received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and
>>>>> permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and
>>>>> any printout.
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> v6ops mailing list
>>>>> v6ops@ietf.org <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>>
>>>
>>> This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable
>>> proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or
>>> subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is
>>> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it
>>> is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail,
>>> you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution,
>>> copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and
>>> attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be
>>> unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify
>>> the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any
>>> copy of this E-mail and any printout.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> v6ops mailing list
>>> v6ops@ietf.org <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>