RE: Comments on draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-01.txt

[Francois-Xavier Le Bail <fx.lebail@yahoo.com>]

Yesterday you said  "Also, the virtual Loopback interface is in the same link-local domain as the WAN interface."

Today you say "The Loopback interface doesn't face the downstream or the upstream."

Can explain clearly your architecture?

Francois-Xavier

--- On Mon, 7/21/08, Hemant Singh (shemant) <shemant@cisco.com> wrote:

> From: Hemant Singh (shemant) <shemant@cisco.com>
> Subject: RE: Comments on draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-01.txt
> To: "Ole Troan" <otroan@employees.org>
> Cc: "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <iljitsch@muada.com>, "IPv6 Operations" <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
> Date: Monday, July 21, 2008, 7:31 AM
> We are not even concerned about the draft being a WG work
> item.  We have
> not even completed requirements for the device.  
> 
> > no, you cannot use stateless DHCP for prefix
> delegation.
> 
> Also, if you say IA_PD is forbidden by stateless DHCPv6,
> please point to
> a MUST NOT text in any RFC.
> 
> > e.g:
> > - false: downstream interfaces (loopback, LAN) can run
> SLAAC or DHCP
> IA/PD protocols
> 
> The Loopback interface doesn't face the downstream or
> the upstream.  You
> and I both know RFC3633 has no explicit text that prohibits
> stateless
> DHCPv6 asking for IA_PD as I showed how (using the ORO once
> an interface
> has acquired a global IPv6 address). 
> 
> > - false: you need a global address on the WAN
> interface for uRPF
> 
> If you don't see the obvious problem with uRPF with
> just a link-local
> address on the WAN interface, I suggest you go do a test
> and get back to
> us.
> 
> > - false: loopback interface is required. (it's
> only purpose is to have
> a stable always up management interface).
> 
> DSL folks have asked to support the WAN interface acquiring
> a link-local
> address.  So it is the Loopback interface that acquires a
> global IPv6
> address to source packets to the WAN.  If the Loopback
> interface is not
> spawned, then since the LAN interface has global IPv6
> address, one could
> say, use the LAN interface global address to source packets
> to the WAN.
> But the CPE Router will not even function if the WAN
> interface has only
> link-local and the LAN interface has a global IPv6 address
> - see section
> 4 of 
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-miyakawa-1plus64s-00.txt
> 
> 
> Hemant 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ichiroumakino@gmail.com
> [mailto:ichiroumakino@gmail.com] On Behalf
> Of Ole Troan
> Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 6:54 AM
> To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
> Cc: Iljitsch van Beijnum; IPv6 Operations
> Subject: Re: Comments on
> draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-01.txt
> 
> Hemant,
> 
> > For Iljitsch van Beijnum related to his question on
> whether IA_PD 
> > could be asked of by stateless DHCPv6:
> >
> > Sorry one correction for this statement in the email
> below.
> >
> > "The Loopback interface would need to acquire a
> global IPv6 address 
> > first using stateful DHCPv6 (a MUST, because SLAAC
> doesn't support 
> > getting IA_PD).(a MUST, because SLAAC doesn't
> support getting IA_PD)."
> >
> > The Loopback interface may acquire the global IPv6
> address using SLAAC
> 
> > and not necessarily DHCPv6.  Then since the Loopback
> interface does 
> > have a global address, then I believe it is
> permissible for stateless 
> > DHCPv6 to get IA_PD by specifying the IA_PD option in
> the ORO?  We 
> > need to check if RFC3633 explicitly prohibits asking
> for IA_PD by 
> > stateless DHCPv6? Ole, what say you - thanks?
> 
> no, you cannot use stateless DHCP for prefix delegation.
> 
> I don't understand where you are going with this draft.
> this is all over
> the map. several people on this mailing list has tried to
> correct your
> misconceptions, but we don't seem to be getting
> through...
> 
> e.g:
> - false: downstream interfaces (loopback, LAN) can run
> SLAAC or DHCP
> IA/PD protocols
> - false: you need a global address on the WAN interface for
> uRPF
> - false: loopback interface is required. (it's only
> purpose is to have a
> stable always up management interface).
> 
> > Anyhow, the problem still remains that we expire the
> SLAAC address and
> 
> > then reassign an address from IA_PD. Same old
> ugliness.
> 
> huh? don't understand this.
> 
> I would not support this draft to become a working group
> document.
> 
> /ot