Subject: (IPng 6467) Re: Questions about PPP over Ipv6.

From: [email-masked] (Peter R. Tattam)
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 00:58:48 +1100

Some kind people have pointed me to more recent RFC's which address this issue.

Can I get a definite answer on whether all interface ID's or tokens will 
always be 64 bits, and that one should only accept router advertisements /64 
when forming statelessly configured addresses?

Now to see how much work is involved in the compression protocol :)

Also, has anyone done a rough rule of thumb as to what constitutes the 
minimalist implementation requirement for an Ipv6 Host?

Would Trumpet Winsock pass if it does Fragmentation, Unreachable port 
and Hops exceeded, UDP/TCP, Raw sockets, Basic ND, Stateless Address Config.  
Everything else is silently ignored.  The IPSec will have to be an optional 
extra as export regulations cause me problems here in Aus too, so I may only 
be able to export on a restricted basis.  I've got a few aces up my sleeve on 
that one.

Please let me know if there is anything glaring that I should implement.

I'll have a fresh beta out tomorrow for those who have been trying out the 
current version.  I've had around 200 downloads since last Thurs which is a 
good sign so far.

Those who want to fetch the current beta, go to 

ftp://ftp.trumpet.com/winsock/beta-4.1/twsk41b1.exe

and

ftp://ftp.trumpet.com.au/winsock/beta-4.1/twsk41b1.exe

Peter

In article <[email-masked]> 
Dimitry Haskin <[email-masked]> writes:>From: Dimitry Haskin 

>Peter,

>Please use
>ftp://ftp.isi.edu/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipngwg-ipv6-over-ppp-06.txt
>as the reference for your work.
>This draft is about to be published as a Proposed Standard and replaces
>RFC-2023. The draft addresses the issues outlined in your message.

>Header compression is specified in
>ftp://ftp.isi.edu/internet-drafts/draft-engan-ip-compress-02.txt which
>is also approved
>to be published as a PS.

>BTW, the list of all latest IPv6 specifications can be conveniently
>found at http://playground.sun.com/ipng/specs/specifications.html.

>Dimitry

>On Tuesday, September 15, 1998 5:36 AM, [email-masked]
>[SMTP:[email-masked]] wrote:
>> Some of you may know that I've just released a beta for Trumpet
>Winsock 4.1 
>> last week.
>> 
>> I'd like to work on PPP but I can't figure out what the spec requires
>for 
>> header compression.  I see an internet draft for generic header
>compression 
>> but I'm not sure if that's supposed to be the standard that everyone's

>> operating to.
>> 
>> Can someone point me in the right direction?
>> 
>> Also, one other question...  the token for PPP is 32 bits.  It seems a
>little
>> small, and since it differs from the token size of 48 bits for
>ethernet, it 
>> makes stateless address config somewhat inconsistent with what might
>be 
>> advertised on a LAN.  Can one assume that the other end of the PPP
>link will 
>> be advertising routes with the correct size prefix for autoconfig?
>What 
>> would be the defined method of allocating a PPP prefix from a site's
>prefix.
>>  
>> One obviously has to choose addresses that won't clash with existing
>ethernet
>> 
>> addresses.
>> 
>> It seems to me that stateless address config only works adequately if
>the 
>> universe of known interfaces all share the same address size, or that
>if there
>> 
>> are mixed address size, that a smaller addresses must be concatenated
>with an
>> 
>> address prefix to pad it out to the largest address size with the
>prefix being
>> 
>> chosen uniquely.  This begs the question, is there a standard prefix
>for PPP 
>> which prevents the PPP address from clashing with the known universe
>of 
>> Ethernet addresses.  (It would be rather expensive on ethernet
>addresses as it
>> 
>> would require 256 ethernet manufacturer allocations.)
>> 
>> I see in some of the internet drafts that addresses used for stateless
>config
>> 
>> are padded out to 64 bits before being appended to the site prefix.
>Is this 
>> designed to deal with the problem (I presume so)?  If so, when is the
>practice
>> 
>> likely to come into play and is there a transition mechanism for the
>current 
>> practice of *only* accepting prefixes that make the total add up to
>128 bits?
>> 
>> Pardon my ignorance if these are standard newbie questions.
>> 
>> Peter
>> 
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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-masked]
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------

>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>-------------------------------------
>Dimitry Haskin
>Nexabit Networks, Inc.  http://www.nexabit.com

>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>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-masked]
>--------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------