IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Pppext] I-D Action:draft-hu-pppext-ipv6cp-requirements-00.txt

Ignacio Goyret <i.goyret@alcatel-lucent.com> Wed, 20 October 2010 18:06 UTC

Return-Path: <i.goyret@alcatel-lucent.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 9EA713A68C8 for <pppext@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 11:06:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.875
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.875 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.124, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_32=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 5yU2UoVXAur3 for <pppext@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 11:06:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ihemail4.lucent.com (ihemail4.lucent.com [135.245.0.39]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7ADD33A68C0 for <pppext@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 11:06:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usnavsmail3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsmail3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.11]) by ihemail4.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id o9KI0HeQ002474 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 20 Oct 2010 13:01:17 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from cliff.eng.ascend.com (cliff.eng.ascend.com [135.140.53.169]) by usnavsmail3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id o9KI0EBM004566 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 20 Oct 2010 13:00:15 -0500
Received: from igoyret-c1.alcatel-lucent.com (dhcp-135-140-27-184 [135.140.27.184]) by cliff.eng.ascend.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id o9KI09KG032319 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 20 Oct 2010 11:00:09 -0700
Message-Id: <201010201800.o9KI09KG032319@cliff.eng.ascend.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 10:57:35 -0700
To: James Carlson <carlsonj@workingcode.com>
From: Ignacio Goyret <i.goyret@alcatel-lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <4CBC9666.5060302@workingcode.com>
References: <20101018023005.360693A6C7A@core3.amsl.com> <4CBC9666.5060302@workingcode.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.39
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 135.3.39.11
Cc: "pppext@ietf.org" <pppext@ietf.org>, chenyq@ctbri.com.cn, huj@ctbri.com.cn, maodf@chinatelecom.com.cn, zhaohl@ctbri.com.cn
Subject: Re: [Pppext] I-D Action:draft-hu-pppext-ipv6cp-requirements-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: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 18:06:19 -0000

FWIW, I agree with James' statements/questions.
-Ignacio Goyret

At 02:48 PM 10/18/2010 -0400, James Carlson wrote:
>>       Title           : PPPv6 Problem statement and requirements
>>       Author(s)       : J. Hu, et al.
>>       Filename        : draft-hu-pppext-ipv6cp-requirements-00.txt
>
>I've read this draft, and I have a few initial fairly high-level
>questions about it before offering any detailed comments.  (And since
>the second draft appears to depend on the first, it seems that this one
>is the right place to start.)
>
>1.  The "Problem Statement" contains many assertions about problems
>    with the design and use of IPv6CP.  But there are many known and
>    interoperable implementations available today.  Are these newly
>    discovered problems?  And do any of the existing implementations
>    suffer from them?  (In other words: "what problems need to be
>    fixed?")
>
>2.  Many of the issues raised are not specifically related to PPP,
>    and are issues any time you have an IPv6 link over any datalink
>    medium, and when used in a particular type of deployment.  Why
>    are the solutions specific to IPv6CP and not general in nature?
>
>3.  Have you read through the working group archives?  Many of these
>    issues have been addressed over the years -- some of them more
>    than once.  In particular, there's established working group
>    consensus that the results of RFC 1877 should not be replicated
>    for IPv6.
>
>-- 
>James Carlson         42.703N 71.076W         <carlsonj@workingcode.com>
>_______________________________________________
>Pppext mailing list
>Pppext@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email