[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: new draft on IPv6 CPE router available for review
On 4 jul 2008, at 12:51, EricLKlein@softhome.net wrote:
Yes, I realise this, but I want my native IPv6 service offering to
require a "router" class device, even if it means that this
"router" only forwards traffic logically between the WAN link-local
interface and it's internal loopback address (DHCPv6-PD assigned
space).
Then I suspect you will be greatly disappointed as I do not see most
of the devices that will be using IPv6 in the future fitting into
this category. Cellular devices outnumber PCs today, and unless you
plan to stretch the definition of CPE Router to include the ones at
cell sites then you will find that more devices are not behind a CPE
router than those that are. Look at the past 5 year trend to mobile
internet (Cellular, WiMAX, etc.), RFIDs, Automotive and traffic
systems, etc. These devices do not see a device that would fit into
this document even though they eventually are served by a router.
The problem is that for hosts that connect to the IPv6 internet over
ethernet or wifi, we have a widely implemented attachment model:
router advertisements for a default gateway and on-link prefixes,
router advertisements for address configuration, optionally DHCPv6 for
address configuration and/or other config, and hopefully in the future
router advertisements for DNS configuration. Except for the DNS stuff
this works well.
The problem is that the service that comes out of the wall usually
doesn't provide this. Now we could tell the ISPs to add a box to
provide all of this, but it turns out that ISPs like it when they can
buy boxes with well-defined functionality from different vendors.
That's why we're trying to standardize all of this.
All these other systems that you mention use other attachment models,
which are standardized elsewhere. (Inside or outside of the IETF.)