From owner-ietf-ppp@merit.edu Thu Mar 6 12:46:51 2003 Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA02689 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:46:50 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 5968391226; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:48:40 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: ietf-ppp-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 2736291227; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:48:40 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: ietf-ppp@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE75191226 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:48:38 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id C59355E0C3; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:48:38 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: ietf-ppp@merit.edu Received: from atlrel7.hp.com (atlrel7.hp.com [156.153.255.213]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A667A5E0BE for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:48:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from iconsrv5.india.hp.com (iconsrv5.india.hp.com [15.42.229.13]) by atlrel7.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4AC61C00CC9 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:48:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from NT43227 (nt23057.india.hp.com [15.42.230.57]) by iconsrv5.india.hp.com (8.9.3/8.9.3 SMKit7.02) with SMTP id XAA08654 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 23:17:58 +0530 (IST) Reply-To: From: "Anil Kumar Reddy" To: Subject: Why only link-local-address ?? Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 23:18:15 +0530 Message-ID: <00d601c2e408$91902710$39e62a0f@NT43227> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 Sender: owner-ietf-ppp@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Errors-To: owner-ietf-ppp-outgoing@merit.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi All, As IPV6CP negotiates _only_ the interface identifier for link local address, we should have some other mechanisms to assign global addresses to PPP ends. Examples of such mechanisms are: sending a router advertisement (RA) of certain prefix or manual allotment of address etc. Is there a strong reason for the decision of having only the interface-identifier in IPV6CP negotiation ?? Why shouldn't we have a prefix option in IPV6CP ?? Sorry, if this topic is discussed already. If so, please direct me to locate the answer. Thanks in advance for your response. Regards, Anil From owner-ietf-ppp@merit.edu Thu Mar 6 14:29:15 2003 Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07895 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:29:14 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id E0A7491235; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:30:25 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: ietf-ppp-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id AC34A91237; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:30:25 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: ietf-ppp@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE71F91235 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:30:24 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 0076F5DD90; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:30:22 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: ietf-ppp@merit.edu Received: from internaut.com (unknown [64.38.134.99]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78B355DD8D for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:30:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (aboba@localhost) by internaut.com (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h26HN0612545; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:23:00 -0800 Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:23:00 -0800 (PST) From: Bernard Aboba To: Anil Kumar Reddy Cc: ietf-ppp@merit.edu Subject: Re: Why only link-local-address ?? In-Reply-To: <00d601c2e408$91902710$39e62a0f@NT43227> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-ppp@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Errors-To: owner-ietf-ppp-outgoing@merit.edu Because once the link comes up it is expected that normal Ip addressing and configuration mechanisms will be used, such as RS/RA, DHCPv6, etc. That's one reason why IPCPv6 "extensions" are not needed (though they have been proposed). On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Anil Kumar Reddy wrote: > Hi All, > > As IPV6CP negotiates _only_ the interface identifier > for link local address, we should have some other > mechanisms to assign global addresses to PPP ends. > Examples of such mechanisms are: sending a router > advertisement (RA) of certain prefix or manual allotment > of address etc. > > Is there a strong reason for the decision of having only > the interface-identifier in IPV6CP negotiation ?? Why > shouldn't we have a prefix option in IPV6CP ?? Sorry, if > this topic is discussed already. If so, please direct > me to locate the answer. > > Thanks in advance for your response. > > Regards, > Anil > > > From owner-ietf-ppp@merit.edu Fri Mar 7 01:29:13 2003 Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA01468 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:29:12 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id D3DB691207; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:30:11 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: ietf-ppp-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 9B92691208; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:30:11 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: ietf-ppp@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9656C91207 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:30:09 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id A9EC75DE91; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:30:06 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: ietf-ppp@merit.edu Received: from palrel13.hp.com (palrel13.hp.com [156.153.255.238]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9D4C5DEA2 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:30:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from iconsrv5.india.hp.com (iconsrv5.india.hp.com [15.42.229.13]) by palrel13.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57BB61C011C9; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 22:30:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from NT43227 (nt23057.india.hp.com [15.42.230.57]) by iconsrv5.india.hp.com (8.9.3/8.9.3 SMKit7.02) with SMTP id LAA20793; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:59:21 +0530 (IST) Reply-To: From: "Anil Kumar Reddy" To: "'Bernard Aboba'" Cc: Subject: RE: Why only link-local-address ?? Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:59:37 +0530 Message-ID: <00df01c2e472$ee210020$39e62a0f@NT43227> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 Sender: owner-ietf-ppp@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Errors-To: owner-ietf-ppp-outgoing@merit.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Bernard, Instead of depending on RA/DHCPv6 server to present, why shouldn't we have an optional prefix option in IPV6CP, similar to RA mechanism. This makes the required functionality integrated into the pppd (PPP daemon). What do you feel ?? Regards, Anil : -----Original Message----- : From: Bernard Aboba [mailto:aboba@internaut.com] : Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 10:53 PM : To: Anil Kumar Reddy : Cc: ietf-ppp@merit.edu : Subject: Re: Why only link-local-address ?? : : : Because once the link comes up it is expected that normal Ip : addressing : and configuration mechanisms will be used, such as RS/RA, DHCPv6, etc. : : That's one reason why IPCPv6 "extensions" are not needed : (though they have : been proposed). : : On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Anil Kumar Reddy wrote: : : > Hi All, : > : > As IPV6CP negotiates _only_ the interface identifier : > for link local address, we should have some other : > mechanisms to assign global addresses to PPP ends. : > Examples of such mechanisms are: sending a router : > advertisement (RA) of certain prefix or manual allotment : > of address etc. : > : > Is there a strong reason for the decision of having only : > the interface-identifier in IPV6CP negotiation ?? Why : > shouldn't we have a prefix option in IPV6CP ?? Sorry, if : > this topic is discussed already. If so, please direct : > me to locate the answer. : > : > Thanks in advance for your response. : > : > Regards, : > Anil : > : > : > : : From owner-ietf-ppp@merit.edu Fri Mar 7 03:52:19 2003 Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA14975 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 03:52:19 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 553C89120F; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 03:54:08 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: ietf-ppp-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 1AEBD91210; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 03:54:08 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: ietf-ppp@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16DED9120F for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 03:54:07 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id E90D65DEAA; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 03:54:06 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: ietf-ppp@merit.edu Received: from albatross.wise.edt.ericsson.se (albatross-ext.wise.edt.ericsson.se [193.180.251.49]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 420145DD96 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 03:54:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from esealnt610.al.sw.ericsson.se (alteon-nat3.sw.ericsson.se [153.88.254.120]) by albatross.wise.edt.ericsson.se (8.12.8/8.12.8/WIREfire-1.5) with ESMTP id h278rEB5004864; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:53:14 +0100 (MET) Received: by esealnt610.al.sw.ericsson.se with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55) id ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:53:13 +0100 Message-ID: From: "Jari Arkko (LMF)" To: "'sakreddy@india.hp.com'" , "'Bernard Aboba'" Cc: ietf-ppp@merit.edu Subject: RE: Why only link-local-address ?? Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:53:05 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-ietf-ppp@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Errors-To: owner-ietf-ppp-outgoing@merit.edu Well, an "RA server" is always present anyway, because if you want to get somewhere, you need a router, and IPv6 routers are required to send Router Advertisements. DHCPv6 usage is optional. Jari -----Original Message----- From: Anil Kumar Reddy [mailto:sakreddy@india.hp.com] Sent: 7. maaliskuuta 2003 8:30 To: 'Bernard Aboba' Cc: ietf-ppp@merit.edu Subject: RE: Why only link-local-address ?? Hi Bernard, Instead of depending on RA/DHCPv6 server to present, why shouldn't we have an optional prefix option in IPV6CP, similar to RA mechanism. This makes the required functionality integrated into the pppd (PPP daemon). What do you feel ?? Regards, Anil : -----Original Message----- : From: Bernard Aboba [mailto:aboba@internaut.com] : Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 10:53 PM : To: Anil Kumar Reddy : Cc: ietf-ppp@merit.edu : Subject: Re: Why only link-local-address ?? : : : Because once the link comes up it is expected that normal Ip : addressing : and configuration mechanisms will be used, such as RS/RA, DHCPv6, etc. : : That's one reason why IPCPv6 "extensions" are not needed : (though they have : been proposed). : : On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Anil Kumar Reddy wrote: : : > Hi All, : > : > As IPV6CP negotiates _only_ the interface identifier : > for link local address, we should have some other : > mechanisms to assign global addresses to PPP ends. : > Examples of such mechanisms are: sending a router : > advertisement (RA) of certain prefix or manual allotment : > of address etc. : > : > Is there a strong reason for the decision of having only : > the interface-identifier in IPV6CP negotiation ?? Why : > shouldn't we have a prefix option in IPV6CP ?? Sorry, if : > this topic is discussed already. If so, please direct : > me to locate the answer. : > : > Thanks in advance for your response. : > : > Regards, : > Anil : > : > : > : : From owner-ietf-ppp@merit.edu Fri Mar 7 11:11:18 2003 Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA12891 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:11:17 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 7A3AB91237; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:13:05 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: ietf-ppp-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 4607D9123E; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:13:05 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: ietf-ppp@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6EA991237 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:13:03 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id D3D975DEE7; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:13:03 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: ietf-ppp@merit.edu Received: from atlrel9.hp.com (atlrel9.hp.com [156.153.255.214]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABEEF5DE98 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:13:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from iconsrv5.india.hp.com (iconsrv5.india.hp.com [15.42.229.13]) by atlrel9.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 375DA1C01405; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:13:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from NT43227 (nt23057.india.hp.com [15.42.230.57]) by iconsrv5.india.hp.com (8.9.3/8.9.3 SMKit7.02) with SMTP id VAA25194; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 21:42:22 +0530 (IST) Reply-To: From: "Anil Kumar Reddy" To: "'Jari Arkko (LMF)'" , "'Bernard Aboba'" Cc: Subject: RE: Why only link-local-address ?? Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 21:42:38 +0530 Message-ID: <010c01c2e4c4$5fefa8e0$39e62a0f@NT43227> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 Sender: owner-ietf-ppp@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Errors-To: owner-ietf-ppp-outgoing@merit.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Jari, You mean to say, the router functionality should be running on the PPP end (ISP) or it should be having RA/DHCPv6 server running on it ?? Take the following setup of ISP neither acting as a router nor having RA/DHCPv6 server, and there is a separate router: [User]<------->[ISP]<--->[router]-- In such case, the RA sent by router will not be forwarded by ISP, so there is no way of User getting a global address. So, we may have to depend on other alternatives like DHCPv6. If ISP is always acting as a router, then this option is not required. When you say that this option is not required then that enforces ISP to be a router/DHCPv6-server. My suggestion was to integrate a minimal functionality similar to RA in IPV6CP, as an option, when RA/DHCPv6 is not available. Please correct me, if I am wrong at anything. Regards, Anil : -----Original Message----- : From: Jari Arkko (LMF) [mailto:Jari.Arkko@lmf.ericsson.se] : Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 2:23 PM : To: 'sakreddy@india.hp.com'; 'Bernard Aboba' : Cc: ietf-ppp@merit.edu : Subject: RE: Why only link-local-address ?? : : : : Well, an "RA server" is always present anyway, because : if you want to get somewhere, you need a router, and : IPv6 routers are required to send Router Advertisements. : DHCPv6 usage is optional. : : Jari : : -----Original Message----- : From: Anil Kumar Reddy [mailto:sakreddy@india.hp.com] : Sent: 7. maaliskuuta 2003 8:30 : To: 'Bernard Aboba' : Cc: ietf-ppp@merit.edu : Subject: RE: Why only link-local-address ?? : : : Hi Bernard, : : Instead of depending on RA/DHCPv6 server to present, why : shouldn't we have an optional prefix option in IPV6CP, : similar to RA mechanism. This makes the required functionality : integrated into the pppd (PPP daemon). What do you feel ?? : : Regards, : Anil : : : -----Original Message----- : : From: Bernard Aboba [mailto:aboba@internaut.com] : : Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 10:53 PM : : To: Anil Kumar Reddy : : Cc: ietf-ppp@merit.edu : : Subject: Re: Why only link-local-address ?? : : : : : : Because once the link comes up it is expected that normal Ip : : addressing : : and configuration mechanisms will be used, such as RS/RA, : DHCPv6, etc. : : : : That's one reason why IPCPv6 "extensions" are not needed : : (though they have : : been proposed). : : : : On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Anil Kumar Reddy wrote: : : : : > Hi All, : : > : : > As IPV6CP negotiates _only_ the interface identifier : : > for link local address, we should have some other : : > mechanisms to assign global addresses to PPP ends. : : > Examples of such mechanisms are: sending a router : : > advertisement (RA) of certain prefix or manual allotment : : > of address etc. : : > : : > Is there a strong reason for the decision of having only : : > the interface-identifier in IPV6CP negotiation ?? Why : : > shouldn't we have a prefix option in IPV6CP ?? Sorry, if : : > this topic is discussed already. If so, please direct : : > me to locate the answer. : : > : : > Thanks in advance for your response. : : > : : > Regards, : : > Anil : : > : : > : : > : : : : : From owner-ietf-ppp@merit.edu Fri Mar 7 17:10:52 2003 Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA09084 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 17:10:52 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id E87C9912C2; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 17:10:53 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: ietf-ppp-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id A728F912C3; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 17:10:53 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: ietf-ppp@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCEBC912C2 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 17:09:51 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id AA5D25DFBB; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 17:09:51 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: ietf-ppp@merit.edu Received: from pheriche.sun.com (pheriche.sun.com [192.18.98.34]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58C135DFBA for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 17:09:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from eastmail2bur.East.Sun.COM ([129.148.13.40]) by pheriche.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA21732; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:09:42 -0700 (MST) Received: from phorcys.East.Sun.COM (phorcys.East.Sun.COM [129.148.174.143]) by eastmail2bur.East.Sun.COM (8.12.8+Sun/8.12.8/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id h27M9g9P009606; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 17:09:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from phorcys.East.Sun.COM (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by phorcys.East.Sun.COM (8.12.8+Sun/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h27M9ffc002785; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 17:09:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from carlsonj@localhost) by phorcys.East.Sun.COM (8.12.8+Sun/8.12.8/Submit) id h27M9fDX002782; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 17:09:41 -0500 (EST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15977.6309.621502.511421@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 17:09:41 -0500 From: James Carlson To: Cc: "'Jari Arkko (LMF)'" , "'Bernard Aboba'" , Subject: RE: Why only link-local-address ?? In-Reply-To: Anil Kumar Reddy's message of 7 March 2003 21:42:38 References: <010c01c2e4c4$5fefa8e0$39e62a0f@NT43227> X-Mailer: VM 7.01 under Emacs 21.2.1 Sender: owner-ietf-ppp@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Errors-To: owner-ietf-ppp-outgoing@merit.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Anil Kumar Reddy writes: > You mean to say, the router functionality should be running on > the PPP end (ISP) or it should be having RA/DHCPv6 server > running on it ?? Yes. As long as it's visible to the PPP peer, it doesn't matter where it is. > Take the following setup of ISP neither acting as a router nor > having RA/DHCPv6 server, and there is a separate router: > > [User]<------->[ISP]<--->[router]-- That box labeled as "ISP" *is* a router. If it's not advertising, then it's broken. > If ISP is always acting as a router, then this option is not > required. When you say that this option is not required then > that enforces ISP to be a router/DHCPv6-server. What else could that ISP box be? It's got an IP link (over PPP) on one side, and an IP link on the other. Looks like an IP router. Does it think it's a bridge of some sort? If so, then it has a responsibility to forward along appropriate messages, including the advertisements from the local router. I don't think that's a good way to scale a network, but, then, I'm not designing that equipment. > My suggestion was to integrate a minimal functionality similar to > RA in IPV6CP, as an option, when RA/DHCPv6 is not available. I strongly disagree. Consider this: suppose instead of PPP (a link layer technology), we were talking about Ethernet. Do you expect your Ethernet driver to negotiate a default router for you? Or figure out where your DNS servers might be? The same protocols that work on IP over Ethernet work as well with IP over PPP. Instead of having *two* mechanisms -- one used when you're attaching to one link layer (router advertisements), but a completely unrelated mechanism on another link layer (a new PPP option) -- it's best to have exactly one mechanism. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.234W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.497N Fax +1 781 442 1677