Subject: RE: Question to IPv6 over Ethernet

From: Thomas Eklund <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 15:45:43 +0100

What I miss is the 802.1Q VLANs...

I would love to see a draft hos subnetbased and protocol based Virtual LAN's
use the SiteLocal addresses in IPv6.

Whats your opinion Matt?

/Thomas

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matt Crawford [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 5:01 PM
> To: RMi
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Question to IPv6 over Ethernet 
> 
> 
> > Why there is not a RFC to transmission of IPv6 Packets over 
> > IEEE 802.3-Ethernet Networks (with LLC-sublayer) as well as 
> > RFC2019, 2464, 2467, etc. ?
> 
> Nobody wanted it.  Speaking from my own experience, having two ways
> of doing IPv4 over ethernet did more harm than good.
> ______________________________________________________________________
> Matt Crawford                [email-masked]                 Fermilab
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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]
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: "Matt Crawford" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 11:49:32 -0600

> use the SiteLocal addresses in IPv6.

Well, what do you want to do over 802.1Q?  The MTU is 4 bytes
smaller, but a router advertisement can take care of that, if there
is a router.  Is there some sensible interaction between the flow
label and the priority or the VLAN ID?  Or between the address scope
and the VLAN ID?  I can't imagine someone wanting the subnetting to
be different for global and site-local addressing, but then there are
people out there with some perverse wants.

It's my impression that the NIC interacts with the network
infrastructure to learn that .1Q (and .1p?) features are present, so
at least an addendum or trivial update to 2464 might be in order.
Did you just volunteer?
					Matt
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------