Re: FW: I-D Action:draft-huang-ipv6cp-options-00.txt
James Carlson <[email protected]> Mon, 08 Feb 2010 13:43:26 -0500
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.pppext |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Glen Zorn wrote: > FYI Thanks for forwarding. > Title : IPv6CP Options for PPP Host Configuration > Author(s) : J. Huang > Filename : draft-huang-ipv6cp-options-00.txt We've had the same proposal come up -- and get shot down -- multiple times in the past. Please search the archives. There's plenty of detail available in the archives to describe why these ideas don't actually work well in deployment and are fundamentally unnecessary. In short, PPP is a link layer protocol. It negotiates only what's necessary to make the link itself work and prevent obvious sorts of misconfigurations in the the link. It does not (and should not be expected to) negotiate for arbitrary network and application level parameters that might help your system function. It doesn't make any more sense to do that than to (say) build DNS server negotiation into Ethernet. The commonly accepted mechanisms are: 2.1 through 2.4: prefixes and default gateway addresses are acquired via IPv6 Router Discovery RS/RA messages. These mechanisms already exist and are used on numerous platforms. 2.5 and 2.6: these are already doable with DHCPv6 Information; there's no need to build it into PPP. 2.7 and 2.8: prefix delegation requires mechanisms in other protocols, such as DHCPv6 and Router Discovery. Looking there for common link-layer agnostic answers is likely the best answer. -- James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ Pppext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext