[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: new draft on IPv6 CPE router available for review

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.
Eric, I know it. I just point out that some GLACELESS person can easily implement an IPv6 version of NAT to do something even it is prohibited in RFC. Of course, I also do not like this.
Yes, but that does not mean that it will work with other applications that are RFC compliant. 
So, as many people said to this mailing list
I'd like to recommend to all the ISP to do prefix delegation to the customer.
Again, that is the original motivation of mine
when I wrote requirement for prefix delegation (RFC3769).
This still seems like the best solution. 
At the sametime, even somebody does not like it, because RFC3484 is standard NOW,
so I admit to say that any application on one router CPE is still recommeded to
select its source address from addresses assigned to the WAN i/f. Especially, Mikael, how do you fix it ? This is still you have not answer yet. OK. Let me clarify what I want to say. 
I am recommending that following (A)+(B) as the way we go
to allow all the implementation which is compatible with today's standard set
can be compatible with the service. 
(A)A global IPv6 address is recommened to assign the WAN i/f to a CPE router or a
host that terminates upstream link
(B)Prefixes should be delegated by DHCPv6 to (especially) a CPE router Even if some ISP does not do assign global IPv6 address to the CPE, that's up to that ISP. But their customer should be noticed that some machine which is compatible IPv6 standard specification can not work correctly if that terminates upsteam link.
Agreed