Subject: [Autoconf] Unnumbered interfaces

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 01:34:07 +0100

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

---

From: Ryuji Wakikawa <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:51:40 -0700

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:
> 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?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Autoconf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf