RE: new draft on IPv6 CPE router available for review

["Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" <wbeebee@cisco.com>]

Mikael - 

Thanks for this review.  Your comment makes a lot of sense. 

We would be happy to incorporate your suggestion into our draft.

- Wes and Hemant

-----Original Message-----
From: Mikael Abrahamsson [mailto:swmike@swm.pp.se] 
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 2:24 PM
To: Wes Beebee (wbeebee)
Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Subject: Re: new draft on IPv6 CPE router available for review

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008, Wes Beebee (wbeebee) wrote:

> v6ops folks,
>
> Please review this draft.
>
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-00.t
> xt
>
> The Abstract of the draft is snipped below.
>
> Abstract
>
>   This document recommends IPv6 behavior for Customer Premises
>   Equipment (CPE) routers in Internet-enabled homes and small offices.
>
>
> Thanks.
>
> Hemant & Wes.

Hello.

In section 5.3 I would definitely like a CPE to work without having a
WAN address (link local only). The rationale behind this is that we
would like ISP routers have IPs in a core IP-range (which will be
protected from DDOS by ratelimiters or filters) and have customers in
their own IP space. The handoff between distribution and CPE should be
done via something that is not reachable from the internet, ie the CPE
should never source packets from its WAN IP, instead it should source
packets destined to the internet from a loopback IP which it should
allocate to itself from DHCPv6-PD (it could also be a LAN interface IP).
So behavior would be "get link-local working, do DHCPv6-PD, allocate IP
to itself from PD range, then use THAT to provision itself further and
to communicate with everything".

From what I read in 5.3, this behaviour would be in violation of the
draft you've written, so I would like your input on how my thoughts
above could be incorporated into your draft (which I think is an
excellent initiative).

Regards,

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se