James, I am talking off of this statement in RFC 2472, section
[The Interface Identifier of IPv6 unicast addresses [6] of a PPP interface, SHOULD be negotiated in the IPV6CP phase of the PPP connection setup (see section 4.1). ] Even they talk about a unicast address when they are referring to a Link-local address and interface-id All I am saying is, if IPV6CP is used to negotiate one interface-id, when multiple addresses, that Dave pointed out, are needed for the same client, why not use IPV6CP to negotiate interface-id's for even these addresses? Hemant -----Original Message----- From: James Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 4:52 PM To: Hemant Singh (shemant) Cc: Dave Thaler; JINMEI Tatuya / ????; ipv6@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Neighbor Discovery and PPP links Hemant Singh (shemant) writes: > It also seems awkward to me to use IPV6CP for one unicast address (and > associated interface id) of a PPP client and use DAD for any more > unicast addresses configured for the PPP client. Seems like muddying > the waters to me. Why not use IPV6CP for all addresses? I'm confused. IPV6CP doesn't negotiate any IPv6 addresses at all. It just negotiates the interface token that is used for link-locals and _may_ be used to construct autoconf addresses. > Going along with > what Iljitsch van Beijnum is saying, who is deploying SLAAC with PPP > that we will then have to think about privacy addresses etc? It works today on Solaris ... not sure about others. -- 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
