Subject: [OSPF] Unnumbered Interfaces in OSPF for IPv6

From: "Ramana Koppula-G20085" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 21:25:24 +0800

hi all,

In section 2.5 of "draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-update-08.txt", there is some
assumption about link-local unicast addresses that OSPF makes:

"OSPF for IPv6 assumes that each router has been assigned link-local
unicast addresses on each of the router's attached physical links." Does
it mean that OSPF for IPv6 does not Unnumbered Interfaces. But in some
writings that I googled, i found that Unnumbered support is there in
OSPF for IPv6.

I have two doubts on this:

1) As we donot have shortage of addresses in IPv6, why should be support
Unnumbered interfaces in IPv6 at all?

2) If it is supported, how can we make OSPF for IPv6 assumption true?

thanx

ramana

_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf

---

From: Acee Lindem <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 10:50:22 -0400

Hi Ramana,

>writings that I googled, i found that Unnumbered support is there in
While some implementations have chosen to support configuration, IMHO 
there should be
not be the concept of an unnumbered link in IPv6. Hence, you have 
interfaces with global
addresses and interfaces without global addresses. Every IPv6 interface 
should have a
link-local address.

>Unnumbered interfaces in IPv6 at all?
We shouldn't - see above.

>2) If it is supported, how can we make OSPF for IPv6 assumption true?
That's an implementation problem.

Hope this helps,
Acee
P.S. There is only one reference to "an unnumbered point-to-point link" in
draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-update-08.txt. I'll change this to "a 
point-to-point link
with no global IPv6 addresses" to avoid confusion.

>thanx
>
>ramana
>
>
>  
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

ed: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FdqDp-0004VB-BQ
	for [email-masked]; Wed, 10 May 2006 11:03:29 -0400
Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 10:50:22 -0400
From: Acee Lindem <[email-masked]>
To: Ramana Koppula-G20085 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Unnumbered Interfaces in OSPF for IPv6
Cc: [email-masked]

Hi Ramana,

>writings that I googled, i found that Unnumbered support is there in
While some implementations have chosen to support configuration, IMHO 
there should be
not be the concept of an unnumbered link in IPv6. Hence, you have 
interfaces with global
addresses and interfaces without global addresses. Every IPv6 interface 
should have a
link-local address.

>Unnumbered interfaces in IPv6 at all?
We shouldn't - see above.

>2) If it is supported, how can we make OSPF for IPv6 assumption true?
That's an implementation problem.

Hope this helps,
Acee
P.S. There is only one reference to "an unnumbered point-to-point link" in
draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-update-08.txt. I'll change this to "a 
point-to-point link
with no global IPv6 addresses" to avoid confusion.

>thanx
>
>ramana
>
>
>  
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>