RE: RS sending in draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-04

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

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Wojciech Dec (wdec)
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 7:27 AM
To: Konrad Rosenbaum
Cc: Philip Homburg; v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: RS sending in draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-04


>That is an implementation detail. One can well argue that the CPE spec
goes
>beyond vanilla router v6 stacks in a number of other areas, eg the
handling
>of the RA flags. The BBF spec goes into even finer detail, and IMO it
would
>be a bit naive to have the CPE spec just represent some status quo of
v6
>implementations; we have a CPE spec so that vendors can build to it
CPEs and
>other devices (CMTSes, BNGs, etc), and operators have a model reference
of
>the expected behaviour.
>Functionally, as I said previously, it's important for the RS that is
used
>to authenticate a given user to contain an IP address that can be
attributed
>to that same user at the BNG. 

I totally disagree using the source of the RS to authenticate a user!  I
agree with Konrad who says to use a L2 ID like line id in DSL.  In cable
broadband deployment we use a SID (Service ID of the cable modem).
Using source of a control message to authenticate a user is also very
poor form of authenticating users when one has well defined
authentication mechanisms.  Or if you meant delineate users rather than
authenticate users, then too, the source address of the RS does not make
sense.  One will again ask why the L2 ID of the broadband deployment is
not enough.  It would be good if one comes with a complete document to
the IETF 6man group like how Suresh Krishnan has done to explain his
needs of the DSL network and help define protocol to meet certain goals.
Then we discuss what if any, impact has any deployment on the IPv6 CE
Rtr.

Hemant