[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: new draft on IPv6 CPE router available for review
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Wes Beebee (wbeebee) [mailto:wbeebee@cisco.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 10:51 AM
>To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
>Subject: FW: new draft on IPv6 CPE router available for review
>
>For some reason, Hemant is unable to post to v6ops even though he is
>subscribed to it. Therefore, I'm forwarding this e-mail.
>
>- Wes
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Hemant Singh (shemant)
>Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 12:20 PM
>To: 'Shin Miyakawa'; Wes Beebee (wbeebee); swmike@swm.pp.se;
>v6ops@ops.ietf.org
>Cc: yasuhiro@nttv6.jp; Hemant Singh (shemant)
>Subject: RE: new draft on IPv6 CPE router available for review
>
>Shin,
>
>I don't see any reason to incorporate anything from your draft because
>our document already mentions what your draft proposes. Please read our
>draft completely before sending such comments. It is very
>clear from our
>draft that the WAN interface acquires a global IPv6 address and the CPE
>router gets IA_PD, the prefix from which is sub-delegated to hosts
>connected to LAN interface(s) of the CPE router. Anyhow, Cable Labs has
>already proposed the same global address on WAN port over one year back
>in cable broadband networks.
>
>For others who have asked for only a link-local address on the WAN port
>and asked for a Loopback interface on the CPE router, we have already
>replied that we agree with such a recommendation and we will recommend
>that the CPE router support both models - one model where WAN port also
>acquires a global IPv6 address and another model where WAN interface
>only acquires a link-local address. In the model where the WAN
>interface
>has only a link-local address, the CPE router will use an optional
>Loopback interface which will be assigned a global IPv6 address
>sub-delegated from IA_PD via stateless DHCPv6.
I agree with this latter as a necessary mode of operation.
Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com
>
>Thanks.
>
>Hemant
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Shin Miyakawa [mailto:miyakawa@nttv6.jp]
>Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 9:21 PM
>To: Wes Beebee (wbeebee); swmike@swm.pp.se; Hemant Singh (shemant);
>v6ops@ops.ietf.org
>Cc: miyakawa@nttv6.jp; yasuhiro@nttv6.jp
>Subject: Re: new draft on IPv6 CPE router available for review
>
>Hello,
>
>I have a comment on the transfered message by Wes,
>
>> From: Mikael Abrahamsson [mailto:swmike@swm.pp.se]
>>
>>
>> In section 5.3 I would definitely like a CPE to work without
>having a
>> WAN address (link local only).
>
>Actually, this does not work if a CPE use the strong host model
>implementation describing in RFC1122 or STD3 : Requirements
>for Internet
>Hosts - Communication Layers.
>
>> The rationale behind this is that we would like ISP routers have IPs
>> in a core IP-range (which will be protected from DDOS by
>ratelimiters
>> or filters) and have customers in their own IP space.
>> The handoff between distribution and CPE should be done via
>something
>> that is not reachable from the internet, ie the CPE should never
>> source packets from its WAN IP, instead it should source packets
>> destined to the internet from a loopback IP which it should allocate
>> to itself from DHCPv6-PD (it could also be a LAN interface IP).
>> So behavior would be "get link-local working, do DHCPv6-PD, allocate
>> IP to itself from PD range, then use THAT to provision
>itself further
>> and to communicate with everything".
>
>Originally, when we wrote RFC4241 (A Model of IPv6/IPv4 Dual Stack
>Internet Access Service) to start our IPv6/v4 dual stack native ADSL
>service, we also thought about same thing. So we can
>understand Mikael's
>will too.
>
>But now Microsoft Vista and Windows 2008 IPv6 implementation are based
>on the strong host model as default, (please see
>http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb878108.aspx
>and
>http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc137807.aspx ).
>
>Especially, if we think that the uplink is a "softwire" or the CPE is a
>brige, Vista is one of the most likely to be used operating systems to
>terminate the IPv6 uplink by itself, so from practical point
>of view, we
>strongly recommend to assign a global IPv6 address.
>
>We've just submitted a very short draft regarding this issue
>
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-miyakawa-1plus64s-00.txt
>
>and hope this could be merged to the section 5.3 of Wes's
>draft with its
>reasons.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Shin Miyakawa, Ph.D
>Director, Core Network Technology Team, Network Systems and
>Technologies, Innovative IP Architecture Center / Corporate Planning
>Department (concurrent position) NTT Communications Corporation Tokyo
>Opera City Tower 21st Floor
>3-20-2 Nishi-Shinjuku, Shinjuku-Ku, Tokyo, Japan 163-1421
>E-mail:miyakawa@nttv6.jp / shin.miyakawa@ntt.com / miyakawa@wide.ad.jp
>TEL:+81-3-6800-3262 / FAX:+81-3-5365-2990 Visiting Researcher, SFC Lab.
>KEIO University WIDE Project
>
>