Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-03.txt

[Eduard Metz <etmetz@gmail.com>]

I experienced the same confusion, this was suggested in an earlier in
this discussion, which to me seems a good alternative for WLL-2 below:
If the WAN interface of the CE uses PPP/PPPoE than in a dual-stack
environment with IPCP and IPV6CP running over one PPP logical channel,
the NCPs MUST be treated as independent of each other and start and
terminate independently.

With regard to WLL-1, should this not be " If the WAN interface
supports Ethernet encapsulation, then the IPv6 CE router MUST support
IPv6 over Ethernet  [RFC2464] or IPv6 over PPP(oE) [RFC2516]" ?

cheers, Eduard


On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Ole Troan <ot@cisco.com> wrote:
> Gert,
>
>>> would you be happier with the following text?
>>>
>>>   WLL-1:  If the WAN interface supports Ethernet encapsulation, then
>>>           the IPv6 CE router MUST support IPv6 over Ethernet [RFC2464].
>>>
>>>   WLL-2:  If the WAN interface supports PPP encapsulation:
>>>
>>>           (a)  The IPv6 CE router MUST support IPv6 over PPP [RFC5072]
>>>                and PPPoE [RFC2516].
>>>
>>>           (b)  In a dual-stack environment with IPCP and IPV6CP running
>>>                over one PPP logical channel, the NCPs MUST be treated
>>>                as independent of each other and start and terminate
>>>                independently.
>>
>> I'm a bit confused about "MUST support ... PPPoE".  What if the interface
>> does PPP, but not "Ethernet" underneath?  As in (gasp) PPP-over-ISDN?
>
> good point. can you propose some text?
>
> cheers,
> Ole
>
>
>