[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-03.txt
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 11:48:06 +0100 (CET)
Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010, Mark Smith wrote:
>
> > My argument is that if an SP chooses to have the layer 2 edge
> > device perform those security functions, then there is an opportunity
> > for more optimal traffic forwarding via a mechanism like a
> > prefix-redirect. You may not like that design, but you might not have
> > to be making decisions about the tradeoffs between backhaul cost, capex
> > and opex of aggregated-vs-per-POP layer 3 and the influence over
> > customer density and geography that other SPs around the world have to
> > make.
>
> Since some ISPs seem fine with backhauling their PPPoE traffic to a single
> place in a whole nation, let's (as said in another mail) postpone these
> hypothetical optimizations to a later update of the document. Right now we
> need to get IPv6 out the door at all, and still do it securely. I'd rather
> have the vendors implement the things we have in the document right now,
> than adding more things in there and postponing deployment further.
>
I agree, the draft shouldn't be held up. I wasn't ever saying that this
prefix-redirect idea should be in this draft, only that CPE RAs towards
the SP might be a place that such a supported capability could be
announced, which of course wouldn't be possible if this draft stopped
CPE from issuing RAs.
Thinking about it a bit further, I think a Neighbor Announcement option
might be an alternative and possibly better place for this capability
announcement option, should the idea itself have merit.
Regards,
Mark.