Generally, I would treat the equation as if it were any ordinary noun phrase, and use the usual rules for comma, colon, or no punctuation.
A colon is used if the equation is an elaboration, or an item. So, just as you might write
Lips are characterized by the following properties: fleshy, paired, red.
you would write
An ellipse is characterized by the following equation:
$$ \frac{x^2}{a^2}+\frac{y^2}{b^2} = 1 $$
A comma precedes a non-restrictive clause (one that describes rather than identifies the noun phrase), so by analogy with
The line can be assigned to a simpler character, Polonius.
we might write
A line can be described with a simpler equation,
$$ y = mx+b $$
In comparison, with a restrictive clause, we use no comma, so just as we would write
From this, the oiler obtained the formula CH$_3$C$_6$H$_4$C$_2$H$_5$.
we would also write
From this, Euler obtained the formula
$$ e^{i\pi}+1 = 0 $$
I suspect there aren't any hard and fast rules for this, however. Whatever you choose to do, be consistent and reasonable.
ETA (2017-09-10): You'll notice that I have no periods at the ends of these equations. The papers I have generally (though not universally) observe this pattern. However, in other fields, equations may have ending punctuation depending on how they occur within a sentence. It may be useful for a writer to consult the publication's style guide, if applicable, or at least examine previous articles within the same publication or outlet.
ETA (2022-05-01): Somewhat coincidentally, on the same day (today), I both (a) received a straggling upvote on this rather middle-aged answer, and (b) found the following in the foreword to the third edition of Ian Stewart's classic book, Galois Theory (2004):
[after discussing the need for punctuation for formulas in the main body of the text] But I have come to the conclusion that eliminating visual junk from the printed page is more important than punctuatory pedantry, so that when the same formula is displayed, for example
$$ t^2+1 $$
then it looks silly if the comma is included, like this,
$$ t^2+1, $$
and everything is much cleaner and less ambiguous without punctuation.
Purists will hate this, though many of them would not have noticed had I not pointed it out here. Until recently, I would have agreed. But I think it is time we accepted that the act of displaying a formula equips it with implicit (invisible) punctuation. This is the $21$st century, and typography has moved on.