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

[Eduard Metz <etmetz@gmail.com>]

Is the intention really to mandate "native IPv6 support" over the
link-layer of the WAN interface? (2492 in the below case?) If so this
could be captured in a generic statement (assuming other documents
specify IPv6overX).

Specifically for Ethernet there are two common models for broadband
access, the 'native' model en the PPP(oE) model. Why would this draft
mandate one if it is already known upfront many will be using the
other?

cheers, Eduard

On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010, Gert Doering wrote:
>
>> Well, what's "native" in a CPE that has a built-in DSL modem which only
>> supports PPPoE encapsulation...?
>
> If it supports 1483bridged then it supports ethernet and then it should
> support native IPv6 over that. If it only supports PPPoA, then it's not
> ethernet and then it's fine to only support PPP. The original text is still
> fine as far as I see.
>
> --
> Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se
>