Subject: RFC-2472 IPV6CP extension

From: yasuo shiga <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 05:41:26 +0900

Hi ALl, this is my first time to participate ipngwg.
If I'm wrong, tell me please. 

If ipngwg did not discuss RFC-2472 IPV6CP,
why don't you discuss RFC-2472 IPV6CP extension?

Because current IPV6CP option is not enough to
offer native IPv6 connectivity for ISP services.

PPP has two merits for ISP.
The one is stateful configuration, the other is
automatic configuration.

In IPv4 PPP, ISP have been using IPCP to negotiate
and assign an address and default route configuration
and resolv configuration to customers.
With PPP, customers don't have to configure the difficult
configuration.

In IPv6, customer will assign not an address but /48 or /64 address space.
So customer may configure router configuration.
But with IPV6CP extension option, 
router configuration may be automatic.

I've read draft-itojun-ipv6-dialup-requirement-01.txt,
I thought that we must discuss IPV6CP options.

yasuo shiga
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2001 10:09:48 +0900

>I thought that we must discuss IPV6CP options.

	in my analysis and past history, IPv6CP option for assigning address
	space has been discussed and rejected (i guess i mentioned the history
	in the draft).  this partly because that this does not belong to
	PPP layer.  rough agreement at this point is to (1) use RA if /64
	assignment is to the ppp link itself, (2) use ICMPv6 prefix delegation
	for other cases.

itojun

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2001 11:47:02 +0900

>	PPP layer.  rough agreement at this point is to (1) use RA if /64

	"this" in "this does not belong to" refers to "the negotiation of
	global address prefix between upstream and downstream".
	sorry if it was ambiguous.

itojun