[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: WPD-6, WAA-8, and WAA-9 of draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-04

On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 07:06:28 -0700
Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> wrote:

> What makes me react here is that in IPv4 networks there are in fact interfaces that have no IP addresses, and routing protocols like OSPFv2 have to specially treat them. One of the things I like about IPv6 is that it actually has an address on those links, even if it's useless for anyone not on the link. Protocols and internal functions that deal with them can be consistent.
> 

I agree. I really liked Novell IPX's "link local" network address
because it was really easy to remember - 0x00000000.
 
> On Apr 6, 2010, at 6:42 AM, Philip Homburg wrote:
> 
> > In your letter dated Mon, 5 Apr 2010 15:01:40 -0700 you wrote:
> >> Dumb question. In an IPv6 world, we don't actually have unnumbered 
> >> links; we have link-local-addressed links. The link do in fact have 
> >> addresses, but they are not externally addressable/ddos-able. If you 
> >> want to manage a router, you use its loop-back address, which is perhaps 
> >> a ULA and therefore unroutable from neighboring (customer, upstream, or 
> >> peer) networks.
> >> 
> >> Is there a problem with the link-local-address model if an ISP would =
> >> rather use it?
> >> 
> >> Or did I miss something?
> > 
> > I've never seen a real definition of what 'unnumbered' is supposed to mean
> > in the context of IPv6, but I think it is assumed to mean a link that does not
> > have a global prefix.
> > 
> > 
> 
> http://www.ipinc.net/IPv4.GIF
> 
>