[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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   (m/j/a) 8/28/08 10:05 PM:

-----Original Message-----
From: james woodyatt [mailto:jhw@apple.com]

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?

Not that I see, understanding that 6rd (deployed by Free of the Iliad Group, and described in draft-despres-6rd-00) is in the list of B.

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).

- ISATAP is a tool that assigns full /128 addresses to IPv6 hosts of IPv4-only sites. - If my understanding of the subject is right, it is therefore not a tool to assign an IPv6 prefix to a router CPE behind which several hosts have teir individual IPv6 addresses. (A prefix shorter than /128 would be necesssary, typically /48 to /64).


Regards,

RD