IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Jacni Qin <jacniq@gmail.com> Wed, 20 October 2010 17:34 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 C1E153A68FB for <pppext@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 10:34:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.200, 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 3QPprs4W+NdH for <pppext@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 10:34:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-bw0-f44.google.com (mail-bw0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BCD63A6897 for <pppext@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 10:34:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by bwz14 with SMTP id 14so3081172bwz.31 for <pppext@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 10:36:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=pF6kT6gM1yfPh+pxseMCu5d4WpLz7BpLFBlL3HPrmKY=; b=wOSFqzVwkUQArDZH706ikL3bNVovJQuDkdgWpe5jG1UenbEvHPv2nrKjaKZ7NzJ7bT 8kmEXPkxmGI5PykrP+X58+QjW4QJPYoiHgL3kog4lKlRWKp4B03xi5URah+Ep0GVN0NL NsbPLAQDsvxAVKWIZHXOq+0UEFCrw+jgRNZQ4=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=dgZIPSbWtpqxbogiywt1uSQtByptACub5ZDTffcG2gbdVlm0UZOt94wIUduWXibjtf zn0H9TMa5mdfhPgySTxHGKQ1E0HId1NpG6K1wFrsUDcavVZse4BMTT+0hzWuhECrfJnc 0I6+kftl8DjbOvK6qFpl3nJv5MATJIulONtrI=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.204.103.67 with SMTP id j3mr7271076bko.94.1287596174570; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 10:36:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.204.66.129 with HTTP; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 10:36:14 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <201010201429.o9KETNpi092485@calcite.rhyolite.com>
References: <4CBEEF16.1030304@workingcode.com> <201010201429.o9KETNpi092485@calcite.rhyolite.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 01:36:14 +0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTin6+sARKL1YoOpogD9KLNcJONX4HYHWtMg7e0AO@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jacni Qin <jacniq@gmail.com>
To: Vernon Schryver <vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6dee8e899772904930fd833
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 17:34:44 -0000

Dear Vernon,

Please see inline,

On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 10:29 PM, Vernon Schryver
<vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com>wrote;wrote:

> > From: James Carlson <carlsonj@workingcode.com>
> > To: huj@ctbri.com.cn
> > Cc: pppext@ietf.org
>
> > > Yes, of course, we've read the archives(after 2004) carefully.
> > > Right, several drafts have ever been posted trying to solve some of
> > > these problems, but not moving forward.
> >
> > Correct; there was no consensus to do so.
>
> There was a clear consensus to not do so.  That differs from
> a lack of consensus.
>
>
> > > But now, under the great pressure of IPv4 address exhaustion, we try to
> > > evaluate critical mechanisms for IPv6
>
> IPv4 addresses will be exhausted before a standards track RFC could
> be approved.  Any real IPv6/PPP problems at this late date must be
> addressed elsewhere.
>

> > > One RFC will make real sense only if it is verified by implementations
> > > in real world and finally got widely deployed.
>
> 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 ?


> 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?

Many thanks,
Jacni



> then China Telecom
> must have already built, tested, and deployed in alpha testing prototype
> implementations of the proposed PPP extensions.  What has been observed,
> especially in the alpha testing?
>
>
> Vernon Schryver    vjs@rhyolite.com
> _______________________________________________
> Pppext mailing list
> Pppext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext
>

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email