Re: Guidelines for Numbering IPv6 Point-to-Point Links and Easing the Addressing Plans

[Vincent Jardin <vincent.jardin@6wind.com>]

Hi,

Please, this draft should metion:
 - the cases when there are only link-local addresses

 - because it is mainly focus on ISPs cases, it should describe too how 
it fits with Prefix Delegation: my recommandation would be not to put 
any addresses ont the point to point interface (there is already 
link-local addresses which are enough for routing protocols).

 - there are some drawbacks of putting an IPv6 /64 on the provider side,
      + because you will create loops if redirection is not properly 
implemented on point to point interfaces (I mean a good implementation 
and configuration should never send redirect packets)
      + because you will loose the support of the anycast address 
sub-network. It means that the LNS or BAS will answer instead of the CPE.

 - what's about the support of the anycast address sub-network ?

 - what's about multi-links to a same site ? For instance, we know some 
cases where you have 2 point to point links with ECMPv6 for load 
balancing. Section 4 cannot be applied in that case.

FYI and from my experience, for ISPs, it is useless to number the IPv6 
links. Only link local is enough.  From an implementation point of view, 
you just need to add a reject (or blackhole) /48 route for each users 
through each interface. Because you have a same route through many 
interfaces, you will have the benefit of ECMPv6 support.

Maybe, it could be useful (and I do doubt), to number only the IPv6 
point to point links that are more used for infrasturcture (GRE, 6in6, 
L2TP/VPN, etc.).

Regards,
 Vincent

> > Hi all,
> >
> > We have submitted before yesterday a new draft, it seems is 
> > still not available at the IETF repository, but meanwhile, 
> > the document can be reached
> > at:
> > http://www.consulintel.euro6ix.org/ietf/draft-palet-v6ops-poin
> >    
> t2point-00.txt
>  
>
> > Comments welcome !
> >
> >