[16NG] Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-16ng-ipv6-over-ipv6cs (IPv6 Over the IP Specific part of the Packet Convergence sublayer in 802.16 Networks) to Proposed Standard

Basavaraj Patil writes:
> A slightly revised version of the I-D is now available at:
> http://people.nokia.net/~patil/IDs/draft-ietf-16ng-ipv6-over-ipv6cs-09.txt

I've read through the document as well as (most of) the mailing list
discussion, and I don't see anything that directly addresses one
possible issue here.

That issue is the exclusive use of IPv4 or IPv6 on Packet CS.  Why
must it be exclusive?  The first four bits of the datagram tell you
conclusively whether you're looking at IPv4 or IPv6, so why is strict
segregation needed?

Can't both run on the same link?

(I'm also a bit concerned that this proposal will end up rediscovering
RFC 1547 over time, as other unnegotiated point-to-point mechanisms
have in the past, and the reasons why PPP's negotiation exists.  I'm
certainly not arguing for the use of PPP over Ethernet CS -- that'd be
worse still -- but I think the IEEE may have made a mistake in
defining an IP Packet CS rather than a PPP Packet CS.)

-- 
James Carlson, Solaris Networking              <james.d.carlson@sun.com>
Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive         71.232W   Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757   42.496N   Fax +1 781 442 1677

_______________________________________________
16NG mailing list
16NG@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng