RE: But are we talking IPv6 only? That's how I read the draft. (Re: Some suggestions for draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-03)

["Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: james woodyatt [mailto:jhw@apple.com] 
>Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 1:50 PM
>To: IPv6 Operations
>Subject: Re: But are we talking IPv6 only? That's how I read 
>the draft. (Re: Some suggestions for 
>draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-03)
>
>On Aug 28, 2008, at 13:05, Templin, Fred L wrote:
>> [I wrote:]
>>>
>>> The minimum set of models I think we should consider are..
>>>
>>> A) CPE is a router connected to a native IPv6 service provider with
>>> prefix delegation.  Note: this includes dual-stack-lite CPE, as
>>> currently proposed.
>>>
>>> B) CPE is an IPv4/NAT router connected to a service provider where
>>> IPv6-in-IPv4 tunneling is available with a default route to
>>> the public
>>> default-free zone, e.g. 6to4, tunnel-broker, etc.
>>>
>>> Are there *any* other realistic models to consider for residential  
>>> CPE?
>>
>> CPE is an IPv4/NAT router connected to a service provider
>> where IPv6-in-IPv4 tunneling is available with a default
>> route to a border gateway for the service provider, e.g.,
>> ISATAP (with private IPv4 address on the CPE's provider-
>> facing interface).
>
>
>Please correct me if I'm wrong... that's just B) where the tunnel is  
>ISATAP.  Right?

The distinction being drawn between B) and this (call it C),
I guess) is that C) entails a private IPv4 address on the
CPE provider-facing interace; not a public one.

Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com 

>
>--
>james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>
>member of technical staff, communications engineering
>
>
>
>