On Fri, 22 Mar 2002, Yamasaki Toshi wrote: > > - pppext might be workable for PPP connections, and is a valid mechanism > > especially if there is no simple alternative (e.g. if the only alternative > > is full statefull DHCPv6). > > No. PPPext solves the issue only when you use PPP. That means you need > another solution when you don't use PPP, and that makes it difficult to > achieve zero-configuration enviroment.
Which is why I said 'PPP connections'. :-) > > - dhcpv6 will work ok, I think, but is a bit complex for being usable > > in every scenario > > Yes, that's why Ralf proposed the DHCP subset or DHCP-lite named "DNCP". Which may still be too heavy. > > - APD w/ ICMPv6 is ok but can be simplified (e.g. removing prefix return > > message) > > I think APD is simple enough, and DNCP is also simple enough. Technically > there is almost no difference between DNCP and APD. True, but APD has IMO unnecessary components of stateful nature, like prefix return message. > > - RA (Lutchansky) is a nice hack, kinda works with hacking. > > It assumes only P-to-P enviroment. Again you need another solution for > non-P-to-P enviroment. Our goal is to achieve auto-configuration, right? > Then, how dose a CPE know whether it is conneted to P-to-P link or P-to-MP > link automatically? Prefix Delegation need not be (IMO) completely automatic: it's completely ok to have to add a 'request-prefix interface eth0', 'request-prefix interface any', or whatever in the configuration of the CPE. Via that, detecting the link type is irrelevant: we don't necessary end up with one mechanism already. > > Note that IMO, configuring these with "stateless DHCPv6" but obtaining the > > prefix with e.g. APD makes perfect sense -- there might be reluctance to > > implement full DHCP, or even the minimal set of "stateful" DHCP. > > Both APD and DNCP are "stateful". see below. > I'm providing commercial IPv6 services today, and will start IPv6 over > DSL/FTTH services soon. You should understand that "stateful" is one of the > most important requirements of commercial ISPs. > > How do you charge and/or solve abuse problems while you don't know who used > which prefixes and when? I don't think that anyone is assuming 100% automatic prefix generation like EUI64 IID generation: rather, I assume that in (at least almost) every case, the prefixes will be configured statically somewhere, along the lines "identifier/customer: prefix". With stateful above I meant protocols which expect one to request a prefix and return it back, release it, return it back if no longer used, etc. -- consider router advertisements which aren't stateful in that manner. But these are what the requirements document is for.. -- Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted, Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall" Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
