Subject: Re: IPv6 over IEEE1394 (dual-stack?)

From: Arvind Murching <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 09:52:10 -0700

Hello,

The I-D does not say this explicitly, but does it support dual-stack
configurations, i.e. for the host/device to run both IPv4 and IPv6?

Thanks
Arvind

-----Original Message-----
From: Atsushi Onoe [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 11:14 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: IPv6 over IEEE1394

Dear ipngwg co-chairs,

Since Kenji cannot be the IETF meeting in Pittsburgh, I'd like to have
a short presentation about IPv6 over IEEE1394 there as a proxy.
Though I think 5 minutes is enough to explain the differences about ipv4
over IEEE1394, it would need 10 minutes or so to tell the limitations
of IEEE1394, e.g. differences between ethernet and IEEE1394.

        Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 1394 Networks
        draft-fujisawa-ip1394-ipv6-04.txt

This draft has been discussed in the ip1394 WG.  The ip1394 WG has
now concluded, and Erik Normark suggested the editor to move to the
ipngwg.

Thanks in advance,

Atsushi Onoe

---

From: Atsushi Onoe <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 07:37:32 +0900

> configurations, i.e. for the host/device to run both IPv4 and IPv6?

Yes.  Just as same as ethernet.

There is an encapsulation header including ether_type defined in
RFC2734 (IPv4 over IEEE1394).  A different value of ether_type is defined
in IPv6 over IEEE1394.

BTW, the reference below in draft-fujisawa-ip1394-ipv6-04.txt should be
read "4. LINK ..." of [IP1394].

| 4. LINK ENCAPSULATION AND FRAGMENTATION
|
|    The encapsulation and fragmentation mechanism SHOULD be the same
|    as "5. LINK ENCAPSULATION AND FRAGMENTATION" of [IP1394].

Atsushi Onoe