[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Fwd: Re: ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in Broadband Access
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, Salman Asadullah wrote:
An operator which has deployed bridged-mode DSL ('RBE') said that the only
solution for providing bulk v6 access at the moment is requiring the use
of DHCPv6 for address assignment (i.e.: because DHCPv4 is snooped for v4,
the vendors seem to have implemented the same kind of snooping for v6 w/
DHCPv6).
Needless to say that that sounds like a very big problem. Requiring DHCPv6
for address assignment for something like this seems ludicrous at least
:-).
Why do you see DHCPv6 as a problem ?
Because DHCPv6 -- for address assignment -- is only rarely
implemented, and many vendors seem to have specifically chosen not to
implement it.
We should not be requiring for the hosts to run DHCPv6 to get a single
IPv6 address from their ISP.
(DHCPv6 for prefix delegation is different.)
Alternatives seem to be:
1) defining each /64 prefix to advertise for each customer manually, not
using bulk methods: this does not scale, so it's not an option.
2) checking whether providing a single, shared /64 for all the customers
would work (what if there are address conflicts? what about communication
inside the prefix? does this work?)
3) implementing a mechanism which would allow for direct mapping of VLAN
or VC information to the advertised v6 prefix. For example, so that for
VLAN=100 you could just configure a bulk command 'map-vlan-to-v6-prefix
2001:db8:1::/48', and it would hand out e.g. '2001:db8:1:64::/64' to the
customer -- or something like that, allowing bulk configuration
4) putting all the customers' v6 prefix information in a RADIUS or
similar database, so that the advertisement information could be digged up
from there. A lot of work, and does not work automatically. This would
also need some glue between bulk config and RADIUS.
All of this except 2) seems to be in the realm of implementations, not
requiring IETF protocol modifications, but to get these features discussed
and on the table, maybe such requirements and possible solutions should be
described in the document.
Could someone check whether 2) is possible or not, and if yes, which kind
of support it requires in the equipment ?
Option 2 works well and we have also explained it in the PPP section of our
draft.
You might have see Gert Doering's email on this that option 2 works well.
Ummm.. As far as I saw from Gert's mail, he was doing 4) (or possibly
something something close to 1), not 2) ?
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings