[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: new draft on IPv6 CPE router available for review
Wes, Hemant and Shin,
I would add my support to Mikael's request that the draft has the
option of having a global unicast WAN address OR having link-local
only WAN on a routing CPE. Would it be okay to incorporate the content
of Shin's draft into the CPE discussion/draft?
Ole raised the issue that a router would (almost by definition) need
to implement a weak or semi-strong model, and I would support this
view. I do believe the CPE must support the sending of IP datagrams to
Internet hosts (for ICMPv6, management, etc) but see an option of
using a loopback interface for this purpose (from the subscriber's
delegated prefix). This allows a single subscriber to be represented
by one prefix that may be operationally beneficial, or provide a more
scalable BNG architecture.
By supporting both options we can allow operators to deploy a model
that makes the most sense for them.
On 01/07/2008, at 4:53 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008, Shin Miyakawa wrote:
to terminate the IPv6 uplink by itself, so from practical point of
view, we strongly recommend to assign a global IPv6 address.
Well, my personal opinion is that this makes Vista unfit to be a
IPv6 CPE. We cannot adjust IPv6 address policy just because of
certain design decisions on behalf of Microsoft.
It is my belief that customers (at least in the market I am in) will
need to have a small CPE that is not an end host, and this is what
the draft should be aimed at. Advocating PPP is also a very bad idea
as this cements the use of LAC/LNS and tunneling, which is a really
bad idea for future multicast use, as well as being more expensive
My idea of a good IPv6 service is one that is purely IPv6 over
ethernet, optionally with 1-2 q tags or mac-in-mac in the ISP part
of the network, but definitely not involving PPP or L2TP anywhere in
At least, how can we make the draft comply so that what I would like
to do doesn't violate any draft? I can understand if both options
are in there, but making my proposal a draft violation seems like a
bad idea, as we both seem to agree that it's the proper thing to do?
Mikael Abrahamsson email: firstname.lastname@example.org