Basavaraj Patil writes: > A slightly revised version of the I-D is now available at: > http://people.nokia.net/~patil/IDs/draft-ietf-16ng-ipv6-over-ipv6cs-09.txt
I've read through the document as well as (most of) the mailing list discussion, and I don't see anything that directly addresses one possible issue here. That issue is the exclusive use of IPv4 or IPv6 on Packet CS. Why must it be exclusive? The first four bits of the datagram tell you conclusively whether you're looking at IPv4 or IPv6, so why is strict segregation needed? Can't both run on the same link? (I'm also a bit concerned that this proposal will end up rediscovering RFC 1547 over time, as other unnegotiated point-to-point mechanisms have in the past, and the reasons why PPP's negotiation exists. I'm certainly not arguing for the use of PPP over Ethernet CS -- that'd be worse still -- but I think the IEEE may have made a mistake in defining an IP Packet CS rather than a PPP Packet CS.) -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
