In your previous mail you wrote: A point was made at the interim meeting (by Tony Hain, I believe, although I trust my memory less now) that it would be prudent of us to ensure that the ISP connection procedure for single hosts vs. routers is identical. Otherwise, providers will be much more likely to charge extra to connect a router, which leads to IPv6 NAT, (which leads to anger, which leads to hate,) which is definitely not what we want to be encouraging.
=> I understand the problem but I am afraid this is not possible with the current way to deal with single hosts, for instance with a single host the PPP link has a /64 global prefix and with a router the PPP link has only link-local addresses. The obvious solution is to use the mechanism for the router case in the single host case too, but this mechanism is not fully specified and not yet implemented, at the contrary the current mechanism for single hosts is just plain RFC 2462. Regards [EMAIL PROTECTED] PS: the conclusion is we should specify/finish/implement/deploy router mechanisms ASAP, at least before IPv6 dialups become common. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
