Subject: (IPng 6466) RE: Questions about PPP over Ipv6.

From: Dimitry Haskin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 10:18:48 -0400

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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------