[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: new draft on IPv6 CPE router available for review
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008, Shin Miyakawa wrote:
But at the same time, please do not think that you're the ONLY person
supplying operational input here.
Of course not.
Also please do not disparage IETF activities and
Please have respect for the standardization.
I have great respect for the standardization, which is why I'm spending
hours here trying to influence it.
If you just say what you want and ask somebody else to modify the text
so that it should be compatible with YOUR opinion, I don't think that's fair.
Well, I prefer to have a discussion and achieve consensus about what needs
to be done, before starting to modify documents.
Again, so I like the following original text of draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-00.txt
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.3. Acquire IPv6 address and other configuration parameters
The CPE Router must process RAs received on the WAN interface and as
instructed by the RA message, acquire global IPv6 address for WAN
interface using SLAAC or DHCPv6.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have no problem with this, apart from that it doesn't say what should be
done if there is no WAN address received.
Fmm.. sounds strange.. because according the above text, the CPE Router must
acquire global IPv6 address for WAN interface using SLAAC or DHCPv6.
There is no possiblity to have no WAN address received, isn't it ?
Exactly, which is why I have a problem with it. I want the option of not
assigning a WAN IPv6 address. I might misunderstand the context here, if
this is not applicable in this part of the text, then I am sorry and we
can move on. Does the wording allow for "link-local only for WAN" and
DHCPv6-PD, or does it need to be changed for this to be ok?
I see. OK Then, how about like this ? (This is actually just an idea. I think
that Wes and Hemant are able to write better text than mine...)
The CPE can acquire global IPv6 address for WAN interface using SLAAC or DHCPv6.
In this case, The CPE can be anything, a router CPE, a host, strong host model or
week host model, following RFC3484 recommendation or even not.
If operator that the CPE is going to connect, does not assign
any global IPv6 address for WAN interface, there is a limitation on CPE
architecture so that source address on it should be selected from
PDed address which is not recommended in RFC3484.
This writing is technically correct in aspect to what I want, but the
writing (at least to me) implies that not following RFC3484 in the "global
IPv6 WAN address" aspect is a bad idea, which I think is a bit biased.
If you cut out "which is not recommended in RFC3484." then it becomes more
neutral. The writing in RFC3484 states:
"They do not override choices made by applications or upper-layer
protocols, nor do they preclude the development of more advanced
mechanisms for address selection."
So basically, my proposal doesn't violate RFC3484, even though it goes
against the recommendations in it? I looked thru RFC3484 again just to
make sure, and my 10 minute reading of it didn't yield anything my
proposal de facto violates.
I don't really understand why you so strongly oppose my idea? It doesn't
stop or change any existing functionality, it just brings in requirement
for new functionality (or not really new, it's rather describes a
combination of functionalities already present in order to achieve a
specific operational goal)?
If the ISP highly values to have IP separation of customer IP space and
ISP IP space, then they can deploy along my proposal, if they don't, well,
then they can go along the lines of RFC3484 and indeed assign a globally
routable IPv6 address to the WAN interface of the customer host/router.
--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se