[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-03.txt
On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 16:17:57 +0100
Eduard Metz <etmetz@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is the intention really to mandate "native IPv6 support" over the
> link-layer of the WAN interface? (2492 in the below case?) If so this
> could be captured in a generic statement (assuming other documents
> specify IPv6overX).
That was my original point. The world hasn't converged to Ethernet only
framing on access links (yet!), but the draft was dictating
mandatory IPv6 over Ethernet and PPPoE support like it had. That clause
would have made e.g. IPv6 with 3G/HSPDA WAN interfaces non-compliant
with the RFC, or somehow made vendors of this type of CPE try to
shoehorn ethernet encapsulation onto the 3G/HSPDA access interface.
>
> Specifically for Ethernet there are two common models for broadband
> access, the 'native' model en the PPP(oE) model. Why would this draft
> mandate one if it is already known upfront many will be using the
> other?
>
> cheers, Eduard
>
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> wrote:
> > On Fri, 8 Jan 2010, Gert Doering wrote:
> >
> >> Well, what's "native" in a CPE that has a built-in DSL modem which only
> >> supports PPPoE encapsulation...?
> >
> > If it supports 1483bridged then it supports ethernet and then it should
> > support native IPv6 over that. If it only supports PPPoA, then it's not
> > ethernet and then it's fine to only support PPP. The original text is still
> > fine as far as I see.
> >
> > --
> > Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
> >
>