Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 19 nov 2007, at 15:02, Mark Townsley wrote:
doing IPv6 over PPP isn't workable in practice.
Why not? AFAIK, the earlier cited SP that has provided IPv6 since
2001 (NTT) delivers it over PPP, so I'm really puzzled now.
See my message from a few minutes ago.
I'd be very interested in learning how they do this. If I were to
create something like this I'd probably tunnel over IPv4 at some
juncture.
Oh, I believe there is definitely some of that, but the PPP is in the
tunnel as well ;-)
I'd suggest you trying to catch Shin Miyakawa in Vancouver if you want
any gory details.
But your provider-spec'd CPE might run DHCPv6 PD, and then of course
your host doesn't have to.
Right. It would be great if the players in this area could agree to
use DHCPv6 prefix delegation for customer address provisioning.
FWIW, I agree.
However, that doesn't entirely solve the problem: individual hosts
could connect to the service, and also, the CPE needs an address on
the link to the ISP. This could probably be a link local address but
for the purposes of this discussion I don't think that makes things
easier.
Figuring out how we want to do IPv6 over DSL (and cable) and then
making all the changes in one go seems like a much more sensical
approach to me.
However sensical, I don't think gating incremental developments in
IPv4 service on IPv6 is a very realistic option in practice
Well, I don't think adding authentication to DHCP is so incrimental...
This is a very subjective assessment, but the argument can certainly be
made that it is incremental if you look at the system architecture
level, where DHCP is already directly tied to AAA.
- Mark
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
