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

[Wojciech Dec <wdec@cisco.com>]

On 29/04/2010 02:21, "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com> wrote:

> -----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).

It appears that you have not followed the discussion (the source address is
to be used to bind the address to a user, not to authenticate), nor read
draft-krishnan-rs-mark or savi activities. I suggest that you do so, incl
the extensive mail archives on those topics, and come back explaining your
technical concerns more clearly.

-Woj.

> 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
>