[Broadband] Re: New Non-WG Mailing List: broadband (Broadband Access)

[Christian Giese <[e-mail]>]

Hi Xueyan,

Thank you for your support and for raising these two important topics.

The ANCP extensions for BNG CUPS and the PPPoE over SRv6 work are excellent
examples of what this list is meant to address. The new mailing list is the
right venue for both, especially where protocol extensions are involved. It
will also help keep your planned ANCP extensions for CUPS aligned with the
ANCP LIHAWI draft I'm working on.

I had completely missed the PPPoE over SRv6 draft, but I'm very interested
in it and will share my feedback on this list soon. It shows exactly why
broadband work needs a working group in the IETF.

Below is my current list of active Internet-Drafts related to broadband
access, though I'm sure there are more:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-huang-spring-pppoe-srv6
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-intarea-dhcp-rate-signaling
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lihawi-ancp-protocol-access-extension

Best regards,
Christian



On Thu, Oct 1, 2026 at 4:57 AM <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Christian and All,
>
> Thank you for setting up this mailing list and kicking off this
> discussion, and also thanks to Èric Vyncke for his support.
>
> As the BBF Liaison Manager, I strongly agree that a dedicated space for
> broadband access-related work within the IETF is very necessary. As you
> pointed out, the protocols (e.g., PPPoE, IPoE, ANCP) used in BBF but
> developed in BBF. This will bridge the gap, benefit and strenthen the
> collaboration between IETF and BBF. I fully support pushing this work to an
> independent working group.
>
> From my perspective, there are already some topics that perfectly align
> with the scope of the list:
> 1. ANCP extension for BNG CUPS: With the industry development of Contral
> and User Plane Separation (CUPS) for BNG, the origional ANCP requires
> extensions. The extensions may simplify CU configuration, optimize user
> plane management strategies, and improve the service activation rate for
> broadband suscribers. I plan to submit a draft covering this work in
> October.
> 2. PPPoE over SRv6: We currently have a draft discussing SRv6 for PPPoE
> transport, which has been discussed in IETF 126 SPRING WG meeting. While we
> received feedback suggesting this might be driven within BBF, the core work
> involves protocol extensions, making this new Broadband list a much more
> appropriate home for it.
> Draft Link:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-huang-spring-pppoe-srv6/
>
> I look forward to continuing the dicussion on this topic here.
>
> Best regards,
> Xueyan
>
>