Subject: [Pppext] FYI, draft-qin-pppext-ipv6-addr-pref-00//FW: I-D Action:draft-huang-ipv6cp-options-00.txt

From: Jacni Qin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 16:47:24 +0800

sorry that i missed the discussion,

we also think that the necessary extensions of IPv6CP should be done,
and a draft has been posted in Jan.

please refer to:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-qin-pppext-ipv6-addr-pref-00

regards,

-Jacni

-----------------------------------
Thanks for the pointer. And you are right that an archive search could
have been done...

I understand your point of RS/RA and DHCPv6 being already available and
can/should be used for these configuration events on IP layer. In fact,
these are actually the way Softwire Hub and Spoke [RFC5571] works. They
are also the motivations behind this I-D: to avoid having to relying on
them over the PPP link. Bringing in other subsystems can bring
additional system complexity, as well as overhead such as DAD. While PPP
is a link layer protocol, it is also used to negotiate higher layer
protocol parameters such as address [RFC1332] and DNS server [RFC1877]
information, so I figured  that IPv6 address (instead of just the
interface ID, RFC5072), gateway information, IPv6 DNS information, even
prefix assignment are reasonable parameters to negotiate over PPP. I saw
that as a more efficient model over PPP link than RA and DHCPv6
combined.

In any case, thanks for the feedback. The point was to see if there is
interest in pursuing it further but I suppose that could have been found
out another way.

Thanks,
--
Jerry Huang, AT&T Labs, +1 630 719 4389

...

---

From: James Carlson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 08:09:17 -0500

Jacni Qin wrote:
> we also think that the necessary extensions of IPv6CP should be done, and a draft has been posted in Jan.
> 
> please refer to:

Are you just pointing out the overlap in these two documents, or are you
requesting that we go ahead to try to determine whether consensus exists
on either of these or on some other document?

I suggest that if there's a community for this sort of extension, then
it would be very good for the proponents to get together and propose a
single coherent document rather than intermittent individual
contributions.  It would be even better if that combined document had a
clear and compelling argument that explains why the existing mechanisms
used on all other media are insufficient for PPP links, and thus a new
mechanism is required.

I'm unconvinced that there's any need for either of the mechanisms
proposed, but I'm certainly willing to call for consensus on these as
working group items, if you feel you're ready.

-- 
James Carlson         42.703N 71.076W         <[email-masked]>

---

From: Jacni Qin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 21:29:57 +0800

hi James,

i guess the overlapping was an accident, and i have seen again your
clarification and thanks.