RE: new draft on IPv6 CPE router available for review

["Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com>]

Personally I and Wes both dislike using NAT for IPv6 since IPv6 doesn't call for it. We will have to leave it to the Service Provider(s)(SP) to comment on the cost model. Personally I prefer the SP dole out a PD. The PD doling out from SP may have a hiccup or two depending upon who you talk to at IETF but in general the deployment is expected to work. We have personally tested such PD delegation to a embedded router in a cable modem where the router modem was given a PD from DHCPv6 server that lies in SP domain. This was some quick code we developed. The modem obtained an IA_NA for its cable interface and obtained a IA_PD for it's LAN interface. Then the PD was sub-delegated to SLAAC hosts behind the modem. RIPv6 was used between the modem and cable aggregator to inject routes from modem to the CMTS aggregator. We also tested IPv6 multicast clients in such a deployment.

Anyhow, indeed, even we do not want to debate such issues of one address vs. PD, or things like if a PC needs to be given an IA_PD or not. Our job is to produce a good document that works for, at least, both cable and DSL, and then any network like FIOS. 

Hemant

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Rémi Denis-Courmont
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 2:52 PM
To: EricLKlein@softhome.net
Cc: Shin Miyakawa; v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: new draft on IPv6 CPE router available for review

Le jeudi 3 juillet 2008 21:05:37 EricLKlein@softhome.net, vous avez écrit :
> Shin Miyakawa writes:
> > If so, I think that people will purchase "one IPv6 global address 
> > service for a host" and USE V6NAT to connect any device in their 
> > home network, because probably this service will be less expensive 
> > than "Prefix Delegated service for a routed CPE".
> > That's too bad.
>
> There is no Nat in IPv6. See RFC4864 -  Local Network Protection for 
> IPv6 for more details.

I think Shin-san's point is that if PD delegation does not work uniformly/satisfactorily enough, CPE vendors and ISPs will deploy IPv6 NATs rather than tell their customer "sorry you cannot access the Internet with more than one computer at a time".

Whether that's a red herring, I will not debate here and now.

--
Rémi Denis-Courmont
http://www.remlab.net/