[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: new draft on IPv6 CPE router available for review
> 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).
Please note well that, if you'd like to assign a global IPv6 unicast address
to the LoopBack interface,
because loopback is the diffrent from LAN links behind the CPE,
we have to assign at least two /64 prefies to the CPE
(one /64 for LAN, one /64 for loopback, assuming that a /64 is the minimal unit
of prefix delegation).
> This allows a single subscriber to be represented
> by one prefix that may be operationally beneficial, or provide a more
> scalable BNG architecture.
So, this consumes more than
"one Global address for the WAN interface with one /64 for LAN" (as
I called this as "1+/64" or for some reason, "1+/64s") model.
How do you think about this fact ?
Or forget about the loopback interface and use the CPE's LAN interface in
the weak host model case ?