RE: new draft on IPv6 CPE router available for review

["Stark, Barbara" <bs7652@att.com>]

I'm sorry -- I just subscribed to this group last week (at the
suggestion of David Miles and Mark Townsley). Can you please explain
what you're saying here? I don't want to misinterpret what you're saying
-- but to me it sounds as if you're asking DSL and FIOS access providers
to not participate in the discussions on this list, or to provide
feedback directly to the list? That we are only "permitted" to provide
input via David or Mark? Since that's a very un-IETF way of doing things
(where generally all individual opinions are welcome, independent of
what company they work for), I want to be sure I didn't misunderstand.

I was about to comment on some of the items discussed in this thread,
but wanted to be sure, first, that I understood this particular email
about who was "welcome" to participate. I thought that Mark and David
were providing an interface for providers and operators not comfortable
with direct participation on IETF lists, and not that we were somehow
"required" to go through them to have our opinions heard.

Thanks,
Barbara

Barbara Stark
AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Hemant Singh (shemant)
Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2008 8:20 PM
To: Francois-Xavier Le Bail; Wes Beebee (wbeebee)
Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org; MILES DAVID; Mark Townsley (townsley)
Subject: RE: new draft on IPv6 CPE router available for review

Folks,

Thanks for everyone's proposals and ideas, but we are not seriously
looking at ideas from individual folks - it's not proving to be very
productive. If you are a DSL or FIOS person, please send your proposals
to David Miles who can collate all proposals and he will also work with
Mark Townsley who works on DSL. We are working with David Miles and have
already incorporated his requests from DSL folks in our next version of
the draft. We don't need any proposals or ideas for cable industry since
we have that covered ourselves. 

Any other industry will be dealt by us on a case by case basis.

Thanks.

Hemant

-----Original Message-----
From: Francois-Xavier Le Bail [mailto:fx.lebail@yahoo.com] 
Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2008 12:41 PM
To: Wes Beebee (wbeebee); Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: new draft on IPv6 CPE router available for review

You're right.

I must explain more clearly my proposal.

For the model where WAN interface only acquires a link-local address, I
see two options for the interface which will be assigned a global IPv6
address sub-delegated from IA_PD via DHCPv6 :

- If there is a logical LAN bridge, which is always up even if the LAN
interfaces attached to it are individualy down, CPE will use the bridge
which will be assigned such a global IPv6 address.
These is no need to add a loopback interface.

- Else the CPE router will use a Loopback interface which will be
assigned such a global IPv6 address.

Francois-Xavier

--- On Sun, 7/6/08, Hemant Singh (shemant) <shemant@cisco.com> wrote:

> From: Hemant Singh (shemant) <shemant@cisco.com>
> Subject: RE: new draft on IPv6 CPE router available for review
> To: "Francois-Xavier Le Bail" <fx.lebail@yahoo.com>, "Wes Beebee 
> (wbeebee)" <wbeebee@cisco.com>
> Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Date: Sunday, July 6, 2008, 8:14 AM
> If the Service Provider has doled out an IA_PD option, then the CPE 
> Router always has the option to use a set of IPv6
> address(es) from the
> IA_PD to configure on the LAN interface(s) of the CPE Router.
> 
> Hemant
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Francois-Xavier Le Bail [mailto:fx.lebail@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 8:18 AM
> To: Wes Beebee (wbeebee); Hemant Singh (shemant)
> Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: new draft on IPv6 CPE router available for review
> 
> --- On Wed, 7/2/08, Francois-Xavier Le Bail <fx.lebail@yahoo.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> > The CPE must also support IPv4, and for using one
> subnet in
> > IPv4 world, it's a practice to have a LAN bridge
> with Ethernet, Wifi,
> > etc. interfaces adding to it.
> > And this bridge is always up, even if the LAN
> interfaces are
> > individualy down.
> > So binding the global-scope management address to this
> LAN bridge can
> > be a way to consider.
> 
> When the CPE router has only a link-local address on the WAN port, if 
> the CPE has a LAN bridge, I hope there is an option to have the 
> global-scope address set on the LAN bridge (from IA_PD via
> DHCPv6) as an
> alternative to loopback solution.
> 
> Do you agree ?
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Francois-Xavier


      


*****

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. GA625