On 12/10/2017 17:04, Tom Smyth wrote:
Hi Ingo,
First of all thanks for the feedback it is appreciated,
especially when you think the thread is a waste of time.
so rather than look for feedback on another patch for now
If you could bear with me and let me outline
why I think this thread is important
important enough to be my first proper attempt at a patch
submission :)
what Im trying to document is point to point addressing
similar to serial links /PPP /PPPoE links
There are a couple of advantages in these systems
a) in that it there is no arp on the link
b) it can save the number of addresses used by linking
routers together
I must say point to point addressing /ip unnumbered is widely
deployed in networks in the wild and is supported on other vendors,
and in order for me to integrate OpenBSD Routers / firewalls into
those networks, we use the point to point addressing feature
(ip un numbered) to achieve this.
"IP unnumbered" is only acceptable on true point to point like PPP.
Said vendor doesn't officially support it on non-p2p links.
In a nut shell there is a feature that is useful in OpenBSD in use
in the Wild, that I found difficult to get working because it was
not documented (adequately) in the manual. The only way I could get
it to work was internet searching and finding a Tedu blog post
I think this feature is useful and functional and should be
documented and I want to help with the documentation based on my
experience.
If you / the community agree with my intention can you point me
in a direction where I can document this feature in a useful
manner for the OpenBSD Users.
Perhaps it needs its own manual page ?
Perhaps a manual page explaining all the ways we can set an
Ip address on an interface would be helpful ?
Maybe hostname.if.5 is not the place for it ?
Any ideas and pointers that would allow me to submit a useful
doc patch would be greatly appreciated
Thanks for your Time and consideration
Tom Smyth
P.S. I absolutely hate /31 addressing
I prefer having a link with 2 x /32 ip addresses
is easier for me to digest than the 2 ip addresses
occupying the reserved network and Broadcast addresses in
/31 addressing
Why is arbitary /32 addresses with the associated uselessness (I suspect
ospfd etc will likely break anyway) any better than 2 sequential
addresses that are always on a boundary? Also see: /31 has neither
network nor broadcast addresses, they must be interpreted as host
addresses (as per the RFC)
Bearing in mind the only vendor to actively encourage this setup is
Mikrotik because they can't figure out how to support /31 properly (like
every other OS vendor has done, Microsoft included).
Adding horribleness like this sets a precedent that I don't think is wise.
