[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
PPPoE [Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-03.txt]
On 2010-01-09 02:44, Gert Doering wrote:
> 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.
In any case, it's best to avoid a normative reference to PPPoE [RFC2516],
because that is not an IETF standard, so will require some extra
bureaucracy at the IESG approval stage.
Brian