[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: new draft on IPv6 CPE router available for review
> > "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 ?
> Sorry Shin, I had thought the /64 was an example for any delegated
> prefix-length. For prefix-lengths shorter than /64 do you see
> different options?
Of course fine, for me.
> > Or forget about the loopback interface and use the CPE's LAN
> > interface in
> > the weak host model case ?
> This is an option as well if we are concerned about the use of an
> entire /64 for CPE management.
sounds fine for me too.
> Given there has been some discussion
> recently on-list about using a /64 on point-to-point links as best
> practice, it would seem to suggest that a /64 should not be considered
> an excessive waste of IPv6 resource.
OK. I agree with this.
> There is also a potential for the
> LAN interface to be in a down state, and for the service provider to
> require management of the device.
In this case, assigning a global IP address to the WAN I/F is easy way, isn't it ?
> By binding the global-scope
> management address to either the loopback or the WAN interface the
> service provider can ensure management irrespective of LAN interface
If you think that some address from "delegated range" can be bind to the WAN
+-------uplink -------------(1) CPE #1
Access concentrator (x)-------+-------uplink -------------(2) CPE #2
+-------uplink -------------(3) CPE #3
If the interface at (x) has no global ip address and
interfaces (1), (2) and (3) has global IP address from their delegated range,
I don't think this is a good situation.
> Further, the customer may choose to address their LAN interface
> however they see fit, which may not suit a service provider. Thus I
> prefer the options of using loopback or WAN interface.
So, if you think that that address is from "delegated range" just like Mikael says,
You should not use it on WAN I/F but loopback.
> Again, I reiterate that I think both options are acceptable
This is what I say. Mikael say more strict model. Please do not be confused.
> I am supporting the option of a link-local-only WAN interface.
Then, again, please try to modify RFC3484 first.