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

[Wojciech Dec <wdec@cisco.com>]

On 29/04/2010 16:05, "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com> wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wojciech Dec (wdec)
> Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 3:24 AM
> To: Hemant Singh (shemant); Konrad Rosenbaum
> Cc: Philip Homburg; v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: RS sending in draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-04
> 
> 
>> 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.
> 
> I wanted to clarify why the term of authenticate was used as snipped
> below from one of the emails on this thread.
> 
> "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."
> 
> Further, I have been following Suresh's documents in 6man and that WG
> has not agreed to his documents yet.  It's not like I have not read the
> documents.   I have basic fundamental questions like what others (Thomas
> Narten for one) in 6man have asked on RA marking - what exactly is the
> DSL problem that work of such drafts is needed?  What is there to read
> when not a single DSL related document has been accepted as a 6man WG
> work item?  As for SAVI activities, it is interesting to me that SAVI
> for DSL is being worked on when 6man doesn't even agree upon what is the
> DSL IPv6 data problem that needs specification.  I am responding do this
> thread for the IPv6 CE Rtr trying to understand what extra reqs need to
> go into the CE Rtr document.  The IPv6 CE Rtr document does not want to
> include any text for issues in a state of flux.  Why is the RS with
> unspecified src address a problem but the NS(DAD) with unspecified src
> address not a problem?  Doesn't DSL have to deal with NS(DAD)? Or have
> DSL standards dispensed with NS(DAD)?  These are the issues that first
> need some clarity in the IETF before one can jump to SAVI or adding reqs
> to the IPv6 CE Rtr.

In terms of DSL specifics: Please re-read my other reply "There is NOTHING
DSL specific about IPv6 address spoofing on a shared access medium (eg
ethernet, docsis, wireless, etc). " RA marking is something that may get
used irrespective of access medium too.

Other than asking for the why's (which would be explained should you follow
my earlier suggestion of understanding both ip address binding concepts
(SAVI) and 6man progress) please clarify what issue do you see with the CPE
requirement for the RS to come out with a specified IP address, which is the
only requirement.
Your reply so far indicates that the only reason for your objection is
non-technical.

-Woj.

> 
> Hemant 
> 
> 
>