[Pppext] FYI, draft-qin-pppext-ipv6-addr-pref-00//FW: I-D Action:draft-huang-ipv6cp-options-00.txt
Jacni Qin <jacniq@gmail.com> Tue, 09 March 2010 08:47 UTC
Return-Path: <jacniq@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: pppext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pppext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix)
with ESMTP id D66633A68C8 for <pppext@core3.amsl.com>;
Tue, 9 Mar 2010 00:47:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_32=0.6]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com
[127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z3ss25CeZ2GK for
<pppext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Mar 2010 00:47:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-fx0-f213.google.com (mail-fx0-f213.google.com
[209.85.220.213]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C709F3A68D1 for
<Pppext@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Mar 2010 00:47:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by fxm5 with SMTP id 5so909864fxm.29 for <Pppext@ietf.org>;
Tue, 09 Mar 2010 00:47:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:date:message-id:subject
:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=BCZM2rHm1FJDCcrNwqpDpC/aV+CPEaF7Vu9LKEQ0ntA=;
b=OvpFKaaOthpKYZ9hXU/loVFT54VOqIkMD2ETZNMNh/zEGWRkZmG7D7cKrQqxNdlfmL
CdUL2ecDbMNREOjIyCswxNbq3TXTfUFX6TIuH28w/WN+AC9n9xns+vYeJdX7jrewqeDj
TuOf6+LId/vk0foUNsGtPcOF69Mq6ucbX2+lA=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
b=SJ1OgYTbUlD9K50+BRfOcNf3ogJqrXYEaxekWpZLeDjZovWy2MrvWeHtv/vb84PYkM
huz+/QN33XHZP8ABEgEzNElAFg5UbUFdKAzdc5io54NKucUrHz2UgetLffv0kaLOEd1H
A7XxkBSIydReDRuwm0fukmaWuZSLumCGBdT+g=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.95.89 with SMTP id c25mr4016059fan.20.1268124444313;
Tue, 09 Mar 2010 00:47:24 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 16:47:24 +0800
Message-ID: <e1a14dfb1003090047p3d3786a6h8663c0c8ebfb30bc@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jacni Qin <jacniq@gmail.com>
To: Pppext@ietf.org, gwz@net-zen.net, jhuang1@att.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0015173fe9d008cc0b04815a3b61
Cc: liyc@gsta.com, ylq@zte.com.cn
Subject: [Pppext] FYI, draft-qin-pppext-ipv6-addr-pref-00//FW: I-D
Action:draft-huang-ipv6cp-options-00.txt
X-BeenThere: pppext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: PPP Extensions <pppext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext>,
<mailto:pppext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pppext>
List-Post: <mailto:pppext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pppext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext>,
<mailto:pppext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 08:47:27 -0000
sorry that i missed the discussion, we also think that the necessary extensions of IPv6CP should be done, and a draft has been posted in Jan. please refer to: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-qin-pppext-ipv6-addr-pref-00 regards, -Jacni ----------------------------------- Thanks for the pointer. And you are right that an archive search could have been done... I understand your point of RS/RA and DHCPv6 being already available and can/should be used for these configuration events on IP layer. In fact, these are actually the way Softwire Hub and Spoke [RFC5571] works. They are also the motivations behind this I-D: to avoid having to relying on them over the PPP link. Bringing in other subsystems can bring additional system complexity, as well as overhead such as DAD. While PPP is a link layer protocol, it is also used to negotiate higher layer protocol parameters such as address [RFC1332] and DNS server [RFC1877] information, so I figured that IPv6 address (instead of just the interface ID, RFC5072), gateway information, IPv6 DNS information, even prefix assignment are reasonable parameters to negotiate over PPP. I saw that as a more efficient model over PPP link than RA and DHCPv6 combined. In any case, thanks for the feedback. The point was to see if there is interest in pursuing it further but I suppose that could have been found out another way. Thanks, -- Jerry Huang, AT&T Labs, +1 630 719 4389 ...