On Fri, 8 Jan 2010, Gert Doering wrote:
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]" ?It should support BOTH then, not just one of them (which I think is the intention of the document in its current state).What's wrong with a CPE that doesn't support PPPoE for IPv4? Wouldn't it be acceptable then to not-support PPPoE for IPv6 either?
Absolutely, but I don't think it's acceptable to have a CPE that only supports IPv6 PPPoE, and doesn't support it natively. This is what I read the original text to want, and I'm fine with that. I'm disagreeing with any text that implies that native IPv6 support is optional.
I now read that my reply could be interpreted that I was saying the current text says that native is optional, this is not the case. As I read the text, it's saying that IPv6 native is mandatory, and PPPoE is optional, and then says what is required in case of PPPoE support. This is good.
-- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se