Upleveling for a minute, why are we even including Link Layers in the
Node *Requirements* doc?
Clearly, we aren't *requiring* any of them, since choice of
appropriate L2s depends on the environment.
Indeed, draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-02.txt says:
4. Sub-IP Layer
An IPv6 node must include support for one or more IPv6 link-layer
specifications. Which link-layer specifications are included will
depend upon what link-layers are supported by the hardware available
on the system. It is possible for a conformant IPv6 node to support
IPv6 on some of its interfaces and not on others.
As IPv6 is run over new layer 2 technologies, it is expected that new
specifications will be issued. This section highlights some major
layer 2 technologies and is not intended to be complete.
And then goes on to say things like:
4.1. Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks - RFC 2464
Nodes supporting IPv6 over Ethernet interfaces MUST implement
Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks [RFC2464].
4.2. IP version 6 over PPP - RFC 5072
Nodes supporting IPv6 over PPP MUST implement IPv6 over PPP
[RFC5072].
4.3. IPv6 over ATM Networks - RFC 2492
Nodes supporting IPv6 over ATM Networks MUST implement IPv6 over ATM
Networks [RFC2492]. Additionally, RFC 2492 states:
A minimally conforming IPv6/ATM driver SHALL support the PVC mode
of operation. An IPv6/ATM driver that supports the full SVC mode
SHALL also support PVC mode of operation.
So, as Pekka points out, the list is incomplete as is. And one might
wonder why ATM is listed over any other number of other L2s...
That said, I would suggest that having (in one place) a list of link
layers that IPv6 is defined to work over is useful. Not to require any
of them, but just to have a list of them all in one place.
How about removing all of the individual subections (4.1 - 4.3) and
add a simple table that lists the IPv6 over Foo documents that folk
might want to be aware of.
I agree with others that this document shouldn't be giving
stronger/different advice than is being given in other documents
already, so just providing pointers to those other documents seems
reasonable.
Thomas
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
