Subject: Re: IPCP Option Required?

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 16:50:54 -0700 (MST)

> From: James Carlson <[email-masked]>

> ...
> > But in this case the client and server have (though ppp does
> > not have a client-server relationship, PPPoE has a client-server
> > relationship, so I just use that way), apriori has an understanding of
> > a common IP address.
>
> Yes, as I said before, that's how things were done in the past with
> SLIP.  That isn't a good thing.

That's a gross understatement, particularly when you compare the average
SLIP user of 1986 with the average DSL user 15 years later.

> ...
> The intent of the IPCP IP-Address option is *not* to assign addresses,
> though that's certainly the way it's commonly used.  The intent is to
> avoid the kinds of broken configurations (and horrible text-based
> kludges) that were once common with SLIP.
> ..

It's sad that the IETF has almost lost the institutional
memory of why IPCP exists.
It's even sadder when you stop to realize that this stuff is all written
down in more than one or two places.

Vernon Schryver    [email-masked]