IP Version 6 over PPP
RFC 2023
| Document | Type |
RFC - Proposed Standard
(October 1996; No errata)
Obsoleted by RFC 2472
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Last updated | 2013-03-02 | ||
| Stream | IETF | ||
| Formats | plain text pdf html bibtex | ||
| Stream | WG state | (None) | |
| Document shepherd | No shepherd assigned | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 2023 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Consensus Boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | |||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) | ||
Network Working Group D. Haskin
Request for Comments: 2023 E. Allen
Category: Standards Track Bay Networks, Inc.
October 1996
IP Version 6 over PPP
Status of this Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Abstract
The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) [1] provides a standard method of
encapsulating Network Layer protocol information over point-to-point
links. PPP also defines an extensible Link Control Protocol, and
proposes a family of Network Control Protocols (NCPs) for
establishing and configuring different network-layer protocols.
This document defines the method for transmission of IP Version 6 [2]
packets over PPP links as well as the Network Control Protocol (NCP)
for establishing and configuring the IPv6 over PPP. It also specifies
the method of forming IPv6 link-local addresses on PPP links.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction .......................................... 2
1.1. Specification of Requirements ...................... 2
2. Sending IPv6 Datagrams ................................ 3
3. A PPP Network Control Protocol for IPv6 ............... 3
4. IPV6CP Configuration Options .......................... 4
4.1. Interface-Token ................................... 4
4.2. IPv6-Compression-Protocol.......................... 7
5. Stateless Autoconfiguration and Link-Local Addresses .. 9
A. IPV6CP Recommended Options ............................. 9
Security Considerations ....................................... 10
References .................................................... 10
Acknowledgments ............................................... 10
Authors' Addresses ............................................ 10
Haskin & Allen Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 2023 IP Version 6 over PPP October 1996
1. Introduction
PPP has three main components:
1. A method for encapsulating datagrams over serial links.
2. A Link Control Protocol (LCP) for establishing, configuring,
and testing the data-link connection.
3. A family of Network Control Protocols (NCPs) for establishing
and configuring different network-layer protocols.
In order to establish communications over a point-to-point link, each
end of the PPP link must first send LCP packets to configure and test
the data link. After the link has been established and optional
facilities have been negotiated as needed by the LCP, PPP must send
NCP packets to choose and configure one or more network-layer
protocols. Once each of the chosen network-layer protocols has been
configured, datagrams from each network-layer protocol can be sent
over the link.
In this document, the NCP for establishing and configuring the IPv6
over PPP is referred as the IPv6 Control Protocol (IPV6CP).
The link will remain configured for communications until explicit LCP
or NCP packets close the link down, or until some external event
occurs (power failure at the other end, carrier drop, etc.).
1.1. Specification of Requirements
In this document, several words are used to signify the requirements
of the specification. These words are often capitalized.
MUST This word, or the adjective "required", means that the
definition is an absolute requirement of the specification.
MUST NOT This phrase means that the definition is an absolute
prohibition of the specification.
SHOULD This word, or the adjective "recommended", means that there
may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to
ignore this item, but the full implications must be
understood and carefully weighed before choosing a
different course.
MAY This word, or the adjective "optional", means that this
item is one of an allowed set of alternatives. An
implementation which does not include this option MUST be
Haskin & Allen Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 2023 IP Version 6 over PPP October 1996
Show full document text