On Jul 19, 2007, at 17:36, James Carlson wrote:
Iljitsch van Beijnum writes:
But apparently nobody feels responsible for the thing as a whole.
My conclusion is that if you want to do IPv6 over PPP, you should
run IPv4 over PPP and then tunnel the IPv6 over IPv4. Anything
else only leads to headaches.
... and that sounds like FUD. Many of us have been using IPv6 over
PPP for years, without the sorts of "headaches" you're talking about.
It might be worth noting here the reason that Apple AirPort Extreme
802.11n base stations have a patch to their PPPoE stacks to prevent
negotiation of IP6CP.
Some PPPoE access concentrators in service with ISP's today refuse to
negotiate IPCP properly if IP6CP is also attempted. Rather than work
around that failurage, we just disable native IPv6 over PPPoE, and we
tunnel IPv6 over IPv4 just like Mr. van Beijnum suggests. We are
unaware of any commercial IPv6 over PPPoE service providers today,
and nobody has filed any bugs against the AirPort base station
regarding this decision.
--
james woodyatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
member of technical staff, communications engineering
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
