Hemant Singh (shemant) writes: > 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?
We'd have to discuss that on the PPP list, but my take on it is that it'd likely be incompatible with existing implementations. I don't know that anyone expects more than one IPV6CP Interface-Identifier option -- I know for certain that the open source ppp-2.4 implementation wouldn't handle it right. I think it'd be pretty strange operationally as well. You'd end up with multiple link-local addresses. I don't think I agree with pushing this issue down into PPP. We don't do that for Ethernet, so why would PPP be special? -- 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
