Dave Thaler writes: > Is this intentional? Was there ever an agreement that ND should or > should not be done on PPP links?
I'm surprised that it's a question at all. IPV6CP (RFC 2472) negotiates only interface identifiers, and not addresses, and ND (2461) says that Neighbor Discovery is supposed to be implemented for point-to-point links, so I'd expect ND to be used on those links. Why should the PPP document dictate what IPv6 protocols are needed? > (If there was, I haven't found it yet, only uncertainty and the fact > that the IPv6 over PPP RFC has > > Interoperability problems and that it should be fixed in > draft-ietf-ipv6-over-ppp-v2.) I don't think I agree. In fact, I don't think the PPP document really ought to go out of its way to describe how IPv6 works. That's for the IPv6 documents to do. -- 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
