RE: Open issues list? [Re: New (-02) version of IPv6 CPE Router draft is available for review]

["Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com>]

Of course, if there is a bridge to the LAN, then MLD snooping is
required.  But a CPE Router may not include a bridge to the LAN in which
case no MLD snooping is required.  Our new mcast section, that
essentially references RFC4605, will add such a statement.

Hemant 

-----Original Message-----
From: Francois-Xavier Le Bail [mailto:fx.lebail@yahoo.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 1:28 PM
To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Hemant Singh (shemant); Wes Beebee (wbeebee)
Cc: Brian E Carpenter
Subject: RE: Open issues list? [Re: New (-02) version of IPv6 CPE Router
draft is available for review]

What consideration about MLD snooping [RFC4541] on the LAN bridge ?
Without it, a multicast flow will flood all segments on all ports.
Significant bandwidth can be wasted by flooding.

       +------------------------+
       | Routing CPE w/ bridge  |
       | +------+     +------+  |
 Port1-|-|      |     |      |  |
       | |Bridge|-----|Router|--|----WAN
 Port2-|-|      |  LAN|      |  |
       | +------+     +------+  |
       +------------------------+
(David's reference for a routing CPE with internal MAC bridge)

Francois-Xavier

--- On Tue, 7/29/08, Hemant Singh (shemant) <shemant@cisco.com> wrote:

> From: Hemant Singh (shemant) <shemant@cisco.com>
> Subject: RE: Open issues list? [Re: New (-02) version of IPv6 CPE 
> Router draft is available for review]
> To: "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, 
> v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Cc: "Alain Durand" <alain_durand@cable.comcast.com>
> Date: Tuesday, July 29, 2008, 4:29 AM
> Brian,
> 
> I and Wes can recall only two issues that have not reached consensus.
> 
> The big one was Addressing of the CPE Router WAN interface because 
> NTT, AT&T, a few folks from the DSL Forum were not in complete 
> agreement - I and Wes are working this one and this is close to 
> closure.
> We talked
> with NTT yesterday and David Miles who works in the DSL Forum.  We 
> will send email on this closure sometime today.
> 
> Next one is use of ULA for the home network on the LAN
> interface(s) of
> the CPE Router.  What we have in mind ULA lasts on the device till the

> next reboot (ULA will not be renumbered on the device acquiring a GUA)

> upon which the same ULA or a different ULA may be generated by the 
> device.  We are saying the LAN interface(s) will use ULA for the 
> lifetime of the CPE Router till the router reboots.  Alain is one 
> person who would like to renumber the ULA on the LAN interface 
> acquiring a GUA.
> I didn't see enough justification from him to change the draft in the 
> ULA regard.  Remi has also replied to Alain's concerns and claimed 
> they are non-issues.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Hemant
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 11:34 AM
> To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Cc: Alain Durand
> Subject: Open issues list? [Re: New (-02) version of IPv6 CPE Router 
> draft is available for review]
> 
> There wasn't time in the meeting today for me to ask
> this:
> 
> Where is the open issues list for this draft, so that we can identify 
> the non-consensus items and drive them to a resolution?
> 
>      Brian