Re: new draft on IPv6 CPE router available for review

[David Miles <davidm@thetiger.com>]

Wes, Hemant and Shin,

I would add my support to Mikael's request that the draft has the  
option of having a global unicast WAN address OR having link-local  
only WAN on a routing CPE. Would it be okay to incorporate the content  
of Shin's draft into the CPE discussion/draft?

Ole raised the issue that a router would (almost by definition) need  
to implement a weak or semi-strong model, and I would support this  
view. I do believe the CPE must support the sending of IP datagrams to  
Internet hosts (for ICMPv6, management, etc) but see an option of  
using a loopback interface for this purpose (from the subscriber's  
delegated prefix). This allows a single subscriber to be represented  
by one prefix that may be operationally beneficial, or provide a more  
scalable BNG architecture.

By supporting both options we can allow operators to deploy a model  
that makes the most sense for them.


Best Regards,

-David Miles


On 01/07/2008, at 4:53 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:

> On Tue, 1 Jul 2008, Shin Miyakawa wrote:
>
> > to terminate the IPv6 uplink by itself, so from practical point of  
> > view, we strongly recommend to assign a global IPv6 address.
>
> Well, my personal opinion is that this makes Vista unfit to be a  
> IPv6 CPE. We cannot adjust IPv6 address policy just because of  
> certain design decisions on behalf of Microsoft.
>
> It is my belief that customers (at least in the market I am in) will  
> need to have a small CPE that is not an end host, and this is what  
> the draft should be aimed at. Advocating PPP is also a very bad idea  
> as this cements the use of LAC/LNS and tunneling, which is a really  
> bad idea for future multicast use, as well as being more expensive  
> than necessary.
>
> My idea of a good IPv6 service is one that is purely IPv6 over  
> ethernet, optionally with 1-2 q tags or mac-in-mac in the ISP part  
> of the network, but definitely not involving PPP or L2TP anywhere in  
> the path.
>
> At least, how can we make the draft comply so that what I would like  
> to do doesn't violate any draft? I can understand if both options  
> are in there, but making my proposal a draft violation seems like a  
> bad idea, as we both seem to agree that it's the proper thing to do?
>
> --
> Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se