RE: [Pppext] TISPAN proposal for PPP IPCP extension to handle P-CSCFaddress???

[James Carlson <james.d.carlson at sun.com>]

Jerome Moisand writes:
> Providing a SIP-proxy (P-CSCF) server @ via IPCP does make sense though.

Not to me.

> Might be a good idea to address the problem in a constructive manner,
> adding a mechanism for vendor-specific (or organization-specific)
> parameters that could be conveyed via IPCP.

See RFC 2153.  We already have a vendor-specific extension mechanism
for PPP.

> Allowing extensions without
> creating interoperability problems, and without the burden of having to
> go to IETF for defining such extensions. 

Actually, it still does cause interoperability problems, as it forces
everyone else (over time) to implement these unnecessary extensions.

> DHCP and many other protocols have such extensibility, why not IPCP?

IPCP configures the network layer.  IP addresses on the link are
network layer properties, but SIP server addresses are application
properties.

Note that RFC 1877 is a Microsoft-proprietary extension.

> Was this topic discussed in the past?

Many, many times; see the archives for discussions about SIP server
addresses, DNS server addresses, and other bits of application
configuration.  You can use DHCP to handle this application issue, and
it works fine over PPP.  DHCPINFORM seems particularly well-suited to
the job, and it's the long-established consensus of the working group
participants that we don't need IPCP extensions like that.

-- 
James Carlson, KISS Network                    <james.d.carlson at sun.com>
Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive         71.232W   Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757   42.496N   Fax +1 781 442 1677

_______________________________________________
Pppext mailing list
Pppext at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext