Hi ALl, this is my first time to participate ipngwg.
If I'm wrong, tell me please.
If ipngwg did not discuss RFC-2472 IPV6CP,
why don't you discuss RFC-2472 IPV6CP extension?
Because current IPV6CP option is not enough to
offer native IPv6 connectivity for ISP services.
PPP has two merits for ISP.
The one is stateful configuration, the other is
automatic configuration.
In IPv4 PPP, ISP have been using IPCP to negotiate
and assign an address and default route configuration
and resolv configuration to customers.
With PPP, customers don't have to configure the difficult
configuration.
In IPv6, customer will assign not an address but /48 or /64 address space.
So customer may configure router configuration.
But with IPV6CP extension option,
router configuration may be automatic.
I've read draft-itojun-ipv6-dialup-requirement-01.txt,
I thought that we must discuss IPV6CP options.
yasuo shiga
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
