Subject: PPP and Global Addresses

From: Lilian Fernandes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 15:28:57 -0600 (CST)

Hi,

I have a question about RFC2472 - "IP Version 6 over PPP". The RFC talks
about the negotiation of the Interface-Identifier and specifies the
Interface-Identifier Configuration Option. In this case the upper 64 bits
are just fe80::

It does not mention if there is any standard way to configure a
global/site-local prefix on a point-to-point link i.e. are there
configuration options to let one side tell the other about a global
prefix?

Or is it just left upto the users at both ends to decide on a prefix
somehow and then configure it on each end?

I'm sorry if there is an RFC about this that I missed...

Thanks,
Lilian

_____________________________________________________________________

Lilian Fernandes
AIX TCP/IP Development - IBM Austin
Tel: 512-838-7966	Fax: 512-838-3509

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 00:12:44 +0100

In your previous mail you wrote:

=> yes, IPv6CP provides only configuration of link-local addresses
(for address/prefix/routing).

=> no, this is done by auto-configuration if one end is a router
or by still to be defined protocol (i.e. manual configurtion but
look at last interim meeting proceeding where this was discussed)
if both ends are router. If no end is router, you don't need
more than link-local address...

=> this is the current standard solution for the router-to-router case.

=> RFC 2462 "IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration"
(note: on the router side, you can put the prefix configuration
in ipv6-up/ipv6-down scripts called when IPv6CP comes up or down.
This works very well, usually you even get a race between router
advertisement and solicitation so autoconf is always immediate).

Regards

[email-masked]

PS: http://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng/html/minutes/ipng-meeting-may2001.txt
(search for Dialup Architecture, note this is my last attempt to find
an usefulness to DHCPv6 :-).
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Ole Troan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 00:57:12 +0000

> an usefulness to DHCPv6 :-).

we're just about to suggest a couple of new DHCPv6 options for this
purpose.

http://www.dhcp.org/dhcpv6-23/draft-troan-dhcpv6-opt-prefix-delegation-00.txt

/ot

---

From: "Yamasaki Toshi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 12:52:07 +0900

"PD (Automatic Prefix Delegation)" is one of the choices.

draft-haberman-ipngwg-auto-prefix-01.txt
http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-haberman-ipngwg-auto-prefix-01.
txt

To solve all the configuration issues with DHCPv6 might be another good
choice, but I guess PD be a minimum requirement for those who want an
automatic prefix delegation mechanism for (for example) IPv6 access
services,  and DHCPv6 would be an option for those who want more.

---Toshi Yamasaki / NTT Communications

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 14:24:25 +0100

In your previous mail you wrote:

   > http://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng/html/minutes/ipng-meeting-may2001.txt

=> you may but don't forget the vote was 0 (zero) in favour of DHCPv6
and at least Steve Deering is publicly strongly opposed to use DHCPv6
for router configuration.

Regards

---

From: Ole Troan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 19:34:02 +0000

> for router configuration.

I'll let Steve speak for himself.

it turns out that router to router prefix delegation has a number of
conceptual similarities with statefull address assignment. instead of
making a new protocol evolve into DHCP under a different name, I
suggest we reconsider the use of DHCP.

/ot