Ah, now I understand what you mean. Excuse my slow brain :-) In my scenario for Dial-up or DSL access services, some kind of L2 authentication, CHAP or 802.1x for example, runs before AutomaticPrefixDelegation, and the delegating router gets a prefix from Authentication server, Radius for example.
----- Original Message ----- From: "NOISETTE Yoann FTRD/DMI/CAE" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Yamasaki Toshi'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "NOISETTE Yoann FTRD/DMI/CAE" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Lilian Fernandes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 7:55 PM Subject: RE: PPP and Global Addresses The draft-haberman-ipngwg-auto-prefix-01.txt says : "4.4 Prefix Delegation After the request is verified to be acceptable, the Delegating Router allocates the requested prefix size from its pool of available addresses. The creation and management of that pool is beyond the scope of this document, but it can be supposed that minimalistically a Delegating Router will be statically configured with a fixed pool." What I meant is that the pool used by the Delegating router, in which it takes the prefix it delegates to Requesting routers, could be set using the DHCPv6 option for prefix delegation. Actually, only static (I understand "manual") configuration is considered. For instance, when a Delegating router is asked for a prefix, and can't answer because it doesn't have enough resources any more, it could then rely on the DHCPv6 option to get another pool... and then proceed to the required Prefix Delegation. Sorry this was not clear, hope it is now ;-) Yoann -----Message d'origine----- De : Yamasaki Toshi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Envoy� : vendredi 15 f�vrier 2002 11:44 � : NOISETTE Yoann FTRD/DMI/CAE; Lilian Fernandes; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Objet : Re: PPP and Global Addresses > "PD (Automatic Prefix Delegation)" doesn't specify any means to set the > prefix pool the routers rely on for delegation, apart from a manual setting. Could you kindly explain what you mean by this sentence in another way? I did't get the point... > The DHCPv6 option could be used in this aim, and would be therefore > complementary to PD... > Moreover PD also deals with routing protocol negocation, and does then more > than just prefix delegation... This point is interesting in so far as the > reachability of the subnet(s) corresponding to the delegated prefix must be > achieved in a way or another... I believe PD and DHCP are not competing, but can live together, like RA and DHCP can do so at a subnet. My understanding is that PD is "third-party-serverless autoconfig" or "third-party-server independent autoconfig" and DHCP is "third-party-server dependent", because PD is for routers which actually delegate and route the delegated prefix, and DHCP is not necessarily so. > > Yoann > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Yamasaki Toshi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Envoye : jeudi 14 fevrier 2002 04:52 > A : Lilian Fernandes; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc : [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Objet : Re: PPP and Global Addresses > > > > "PD (Automatic Prefix Delegation)" is one of the choices. > > draft-haberman-ipngwg-auto-prefix-01.txt > http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-haberman-ipngwg-auto-prefix-01. > txt > > To solve all the configuration issues with DHCPv6 might be another good > choice, but I guess PD be a minimum requirement for those who want an > automatic prefix delegation mechanism for (for example) IPv6 access > services, and DHCPv6 would be an option for those who want more. > > ---Toshi Yamasaki / NTT Communications > > > Hi, > > > > I have a question about RFC2472 - "IP Version 6 over PPP". The RFC talks > > about the negotiation of the Interface-Identifier and specifies the > > Interface-Identifier Configuration Option. In this case the upper 64 bits > > are just fe80:: > > > > It does not mention if there is any standard way to configure a > > global/site-local prefix on a point-to-point link i.e. are there > > configuration options to let one side tell the other about a global > > prefix? > > > > Or is it just left upto the users at both ends to decide on a prefix > > somehow and then configure it on each end? > > > > I'm sorry if there is an RFC about this that I missed... > > > > Thanks, > > Lilian > > > > _____________________________________________________________________ > > > > Lilian Fernandes > > AIX TCP/IP Development - IBM Austin > > Tel: 512-838-7966 Fax: 512-838-3509 > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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] > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
