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

> From: James Carlson <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]

> > 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.

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, 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    [email protected]
_______________________________________________
Pppext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext