RE: TISPAN proposal for PPP IPCP extension to handle P-CSCFaddress???
<[email protected]> Mon, 2 Oct 2006 16:11:05 +0200
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.pppext |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <BBD9BECF6A4E3E459F27B56481238D11024AB0C3@EMEXM1103.dir.svc.accenture.com> |
Yes this topic was already discussed (http://www.atm.tut.fi/list-archive/pppext-2005/msg00109.html) The conclusion was that it has no sense to extend PPP IPCP protocol, because other mechanisms are already in place like for example DHCPINFORM. However I was surprised by the fact that TISPAN is suggesting a PPP IPCP extension, when this ipothesis was already rejected and I was only wondering if this decision was being revised due to TISPAN work. Alessandro Cotroni ------------------------------------------------ Alessandro Cotroni Accenture Via del Tintoretto 200, Roma ------------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: Jerome Moisand [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 2 ottobre 2006 16.00 To: [email protected]; Cotroni, Alessandro Subject: RE: [Pppext] TISPAN proposal for PPP IPCP extension to handle P-CSCFaddress??? Providing a SIP-proxy (P-CSCF) server @ via IPCP does make sense though. Might be a good idea to address the problem in a constructive manner, adding a mechanism for vendor-specific (or organization-specific) parameters that could be conveyed via IPCP. Allowing extensions without creating interoperability problems, and without the burden of having to go to IETF for defining such extensions. DHCP and many other protocols have such extensibility, why not IPCP? Was this topic discussed in the past? -----Original Message----- From: James Carlson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 7:44 AM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Pppext] TISPAN proposal for PPP IPCP extension to handle P-CSCFaddress??? [email protected] writes: > However I was surprised to read that TISPAN standard ETSI ES 282 004 > V1.1.1 (2006-06) is suggesting to use PPP IPCP extensions for > provisioning of P-CSCF IP address (pag 27, section 7.2 "PPP based That's really unfortunate. Their plan won't be interoperable. > Isn't it strange? Do you know if TISPAN is actually thinking of > extending the PPP IPCP protocol? It's not unusual for folks to write their own extensions to IETF-controlled protocols without bothering with the standardization process. We don't have any IETF police out there to stop them. If they care at all about interoperability, they won't do something like this. Thanks for the pointer, though; I'll forward it around to see if we can't get clarification. -- James Carlson, KISS Network <[email protected]> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 _______________________________________________ Pppext mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any other use of the email by you is prohibited. _______________________________________________ Pppext mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext