RE: PPP IPV6 Control Protocol Extensions for Prefix

Glen Zorn writes:
> I think that it would be a good thing, if possible, to raise the level
> of discussion about our draft above the level of blind ideology.  I also
> think it would be a good idea if the people making these ideological
> arguments would actually read the document (WINS is not even mentioned
> therein).

Agreed, but that (omitting WINS) doesn't make this rehash of RFC 1877
any more acceptable than it was the first time around.  Please see the
archives.

Here's an excerpt from one of the relevant messages:

  From: Craig Fox <[email protected]>
  Subject: Re: IPCP negotiation of router, DNS?
  To: [email protected] (Andy Stadler)
  Date: Fri, 10 Nov 95 15:14:04 PST
  Cc: [email protected]
[...]
  Microsoft has proposed extensions to negotiate up to two DNS addresses.
  There is currently an internet-draft out.  I expect that it will become
  an informational RFC as it is used by Windows 95 and Windows NT already.
  
  There has been no discussion, that I can remember, about negotiatiing the
  domain info.
  
  The consensus of the IETF PPP Working Group in the past is that DHCP
  should be used to determine the DNS and domain info as well as other
  high-level information.
[...]

Here's what one of the implementors later had to say about RFC 1877:

  From: Gurdeep Singh Pall <[email protected]>
  To: "'Ravindra C.P'" <[email protected]>,
          "'[email protected]'"
           <[email protected]>
  Subject: RE: DNS address through IPCP ?
  Date: Thu, 3 Jul 1997 10:35:29 -0700
  
  Windows 95 and Windows NT use IPCP options to request DNS and WINS
  addresses from the peer. This behavior is specified in an informational
  document - RFC1877.
  
  It was agreed at Dallas '95 IETF that implementions should use the new
  DHCP-INFORM packet (a stateless configuration request sent after IPCP is
  up) to get DNS address and other configuration options. It was also
  agreed that this information should be included in the new IPCP i-ds.
  
  Gurdeep
  
  PS: Note that the DHCP-INFORM allows just the configuration options to
  be retrieved without the IP address. 

My reading of the record is that RFC 1877 was published as
Informational mostly because it had already shipped, not because the
working group agreed that it was the right thing to do.

Please describe what has changed in the last 8 years that makes
negotiating application-layer details within in the link layer more
acceptable today than it was the last time we discussed this.  I'm
looking, but I just don't see it.

-- 
James Carlson, Solaris Networking              <[email protected]>
Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive         71.234W   Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757   42.497N   Fax +1 781 442 1677