IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Vernon Schryver <vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com> Wed, 20 October 2010 19:39 UTC

Return-Path: <vjs@calcite.rhyolite.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 EE39E3A68C7 for <pppext@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 12:39:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 H7IYeAGV4l3B for <pppext@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 12:39:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (calcite.rhyolite.com [IPv6:2001:4978:230::3]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB97E3A6838 for <pppext@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 12:39:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o9KJfBJ3040046 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) env-from <vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com>; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 19:41:12 GMT
Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id o9KJfAAs040045; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 19:41:10 GMT
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 19:41:10 GMT
From: Vernon Schryver <vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com>
Message-Id: <201010201941.o9KJfAAs040045@calcite.rhyolite.com>
To: jacniq@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin6+sARKL1YoOpogD9KLNcJONX4HYHWtMg7e0AO@mail.gmail.com>
X-DCC-Rhyolite-Metrics: calcite.rhyolite.com; whitelist
Cc: pppext@ietf.org, huj@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 19:39:56 -0000

> From: Jacni Qin <jacniq@gmail.com>
> To: Vernon Schryver <vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com>
> Cc: pppext@ietf.org, huj@ctbri.com.cn

> > No RFC can be approved by the IAB etc. in time to encourage independent
> > implementations until long after the last IPv4 address has been assigned.
>
> How about an informational document like RFC1877 ?

Informational RFCs rarely convince very large organizations such
as those with "telecom" in their names to do or not do anything.

I think even an Informational RFC from the PPP extensions working
group would need approval of the IAB etc.  (I hope James or someone
will correct me if I'm wrong about that.)  I'm certain that anything
published under the rubric of the WG would need WG consensus.


> > China Telecom must have started testing and working with IPv6 years
> > ago, just like the rest of us.  If China Telecom really thinks that
> > the problems described in the drafts must be solved by extending the
> > point-to-point protocol instead of using the existing, familiar,
> > standardized, and widely implemented mechanisms,
>
> --> Do you mean running ND + DHCPv6 + IPv6CP ? is this widely implemented
> for IPv6 over PPP?
> Could you share some experience on this?

In this case I think the responsibility for sharing experience
rests on those proposing new standards to solve problems.


Vernon Schryver    vjs@rhyolite.com

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email