Hi,
On Fri, Jan 08, 2010 at 01:24:00PM +0100, Ole Troan wrote:
> >> 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?
Bah... but let me try. I'm not completely sure what we *are* trying to
say, especially given "Ethernet" vs. "PPPoE". But let's try (also
taking MarcoH's point into account):
WLL-1: If the WAN interface supports non-PPPoE 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].
(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. It SHOULD be configurable to restart the
whole PPP session in the case of one NCP consistently
failing to come up.
Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
--
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 144438
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Attachment:
pgp1XbkWx2I7H.pgp
Description: PGP signature