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

> From: Jacni Qin <[email protected]>
> To: Vernon Schryver <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected], [email protected]

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