Iljitsch van Beijnum writes:
On 20-jul-2007, at 2:36, James Carlson wrote:
Still better to have different maximum packet sizes for v4
and v6, though.
That sounds like an IP configuration issue, not a PPP issue.
Isn't that what the NCPs are for, to provide the necessary glue
@ietf.org; Dave Thaler
Subject: Re: Neighbor Discovery and PPP links
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
[here is the email that had posting problems]
The subject took a detour from its original context
of the need for address resolution through the Neighbor Discovery
protocol.
The author is appreciative of the belated feedback though the last call
for its parent draft
earlier email.
Hemant
-Original Message-
From: James Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 10:56 AM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: Ole Troan (otroan); [EMAIL PROTECTED]; JINMEI Tatuya / ;
ipv6@ietf.org; Dave Thaler
Subject: RE: Neighbor Discovery and PPP
The subject took a detour from its original context
of the need for address resolution through the Neighbor Discovery
protocol.
The author is appreciative of the belated feedback though the last call
for its parent draft (draft-ietf-ipv6-over-ppp-v2.txt) took
place a few years ago with the
On 22-jul-2007, at 21:17, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
it was repeatedly pointed out by Steve Deering and folks in pppext wg
that:
- they would like to simplify PPP and tons of PPP options in v4 was
a big mitake
- global address assignment, resolver
On 20-jul-2007, at 2:36, James Carlson wrote:
Still better to have different maximum packet sizes for v4
and v6, though.
That sounds like an IP configuration issue, not a PPP issue.
Isn't that what the NCPs are for, to provide the necessary glue
between the base PPP and what the layer 3
Carlson
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Neighbor Discovery and PPP links
Hemant Singh writes:
Hemant Singh writes:
[...] Why does PPP need NUD if PPP
control protocol supports keepalive for the data connection - if
keepalive is missed, the PPP connection will be terminated
Below.
-Original Message-
From: Hemant Singh (shemant) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 1:23 PM
To: Dave Thaler; JINMEI Tatuya / ; James Carlson
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Neighbor Discovery and PPP links
Please see in line below
-
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
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?
Thaler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 4:50 PM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant); JINMEI Tatuya / ; James Carlson
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Neighbor Discovery and PPP links
Below.
-Original Message-
From: Hemant Singh (shemant) [mailto:[EMAIL
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
-
From: James Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 5:20 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:
All I am saying is, if IPV6CP is used
To: Hemant Singh (shemant); JINMEI Tatuya / ; James Carlson
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Neighbor Discovery and PPP links
Below.
-Original Message-
From: Hemant Singh (shemant) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 1:23 PM
To: Dave Thaler; JINMEI
Hemant Singh (shemant) writes:
I am certainly not suggesting using more than one Link-Local address for
a PPP client. All I am saying is if PPP uses IPV6CP and interface-id for
Link-Local address, it is a little odd to use DAD for rest of the
addresses assigned to the PPP client - the privacy
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
Never mind, I found what's 2462bis. I got hold of
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-over-ppp-v2-03.txt
I read this draft and I find it severely lacking. At the very least, to make
using IPv6 over PPP even remotely usable, it should include the following
options:
1. An
On 19-jul-2007, at 23:50, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
Never mind, I found what's 2462bis. I got hold of
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-over-ppp-v2-03.txt
I read this draft and I find it severely lacking. At the very least,
to make using IPv6 over PPP even remotely
On 20-jul-2007, at 0:58, Ole Troan wrote:
RFC1661, MRU option.
Ah, ok, that's an LCP option so it covers the hardware side of
things. Still better to have different maximum packet sizes for v4
and v6, though.
2. DNS resolver addresses. Without the ability to resolve names
IPv6 is
Iljitsch van Beijnum writes:
On 20-jul-2007, at 0:58, Ole Troan wrote:
RFC1661, MRU option.
Ah, ok, that's an LCP option so it covers the hardware side of
things. Still better to have different maximum packet sizes for v4
and v6, though.
That sounds like an IP configuration issue,
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 12:56 AM
To: James Carlson
Cc: Dave Thaler; ipv6@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Neighbor Discovery and PPP links
At Tue, 17 Jul 2007 16:35:33 -0400,
James Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Generating NS and processing NA drives the state
Hemant Singh writes:
Ole and Dave agreed upon: for PPP links we always know the link-layer
address. I too agree with that. Why issue an NS to resolve an address
on such a link when the address is always known?
As for NUD, 2461 NUD sections also say if upper layer protocols can
determine
-Original Message-
From: Ole Troan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 4:16 PM
To: Dave Thaler
Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant); JINMEI Tatuya / ; James Carlson;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Neighbor Discovery and PPP links
Dave,
Then you
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
Came across this thread...
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg02314.html
However, in looking at draft-ietf-ipv6-over-ppp-v2-03, it seems that
this issue was never addressed.
Is this intentional? Was there ever an agreement that ND should or
should not be done
-
From: Ole Troan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 10:49 AM
To: Dave Thaler
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Neighbor Discovery and PPP links
Came across this thread...
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg02314.html
I think it's easy to see the disagreement just comparing the responses
from Ole and James.
Ole says:
I don't see the point of doing address resolution on links without
addresses.
James says:
IPV6CP (RFC 2472) negotiates
only interface identifiers, and not addresses, and ND
(2461) says
Ole Troan wrote:
[...]
point-to-point - Neighbor Discovery handles such links just
like
multicast links. (Multicast can be trivially
provided on point to point links, and
interfaces
can be assigned link-local addresses.)
Dave Thaler writes:
I think it's easy to see the disagreement just comparing the responses
from Ole and James.
Ole says:
I don't see the point of doing address resolution on links without
addresses.
If you've actually got links with no addresses at all, then I agree.
That seems odd,
Ole Troan writes:
I think it's easy to see the disagreement just comparing the responses
from Ole and James.
Ole says:
I don't see the point of doing address resolution on links without
addresses.
James says:
IPV6CP (RFC 2472) negotiates
only interface identifiers, and not
Markku Savela writes:
Yes, I expect address resolution to be done on PPP links, just as is
described in 2461. I expect it to be done _regardless_ of the
underlying link technology.
If link like PPP does not have link layer addresses, there is no point
in doing address resolution.
I think it's easy to see the disagreement just comparing the responses
from Ole and James.
Ole says:
I don't see the point of doing address resolution on links without
addresses.
If you've actually got links with no addresses at all, then I agree.
That seems odd, though, given the
Ole Troan writes:
I don't know of any cases where omitting ND for IPv6 addresses makes
much sense.
OK, so at least we've clarified that we're in disagreement. I don't see
support in the specs for doing address resolution on links without
link-layer addresses. what would the purpose be in
At Tue, 17 Jul 2007 16:35:33 -0400,
James Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Generating NS and processing NA drives the state machine associated
with neighbor cache entries.
other ND functions, of course they should be supported.
I don't see how you get there at all. You need to be doing
35 matches
Mail list logo
