RE: new draft on IPv6 CPE router available for review

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

Mark,

Sounds fine. I do apologize for anointing you and David on this work on
the fly. I thought since I saw David's email to the DSL Forum saying
he'd work with us from DSL land to give us firm requirements, I
mentioned David's name. Then knowing you work to liaise IETF and DSL,
you may be another good candidate. I also sent this email because quite
a few emails on our draft were not productive for us or that new folks
had not read the earlier comments from us or others. That is why I
thought if other folks are from DSL land, they could all get together
and give us one stock requirement. 

Anyhow, seeing where the winds are blowing now, moving forward, I and
Wes can handle all the requests including understanding ourselves what
the DSL requirements are. 

I will reply to Barbara's email shortly.

Hemant

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Townsley (townsley) 
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 12:44 PM
To: Stark, Barbara
Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant); Francois-Xavier Le Bail; Wes Beebee
(wbeebee); v6ops@ops.ietf.org; MILES DAVID
Subject: Re: new draft on IPv6 CPE router available for review


Barbara, please feel free to discuss IPv6 issues on this list freely. I
can only imagine that Hemant feels a bit overloaded with comments from a
number of places since the introduction of his draft document (which is
a good indicator that there is a lot of pent-up desire for work around
this topic). Note that his document is an individual submission at this
stage, not a product of the WG. If Hemant needs to step back a little,
that's OK, there are plenty of other people on this list with something
to say.

Hemant, I don't think David or I should be anointed as the central
source for collecting input on DSL requirements for a future v6ops
document. At some point, if v6ops creates a WG document on IPv6 CPE/RG
requirements, the editor(s) of that document will be responsible for
ensuring that WG consensus, achieved on this list, is recorded properly.

So, that means discussion happens on the list and the editors are only
recording what the WG ultimately wants to express, not the other way
around.

In the end, there might be a diversion between the RG requirements for
Cable vs. DSL vs. FTTH, etc, but I would hope these to be as congruent
and complimentary as possible - at least for all of the "fixed wire"
cases.

- Mark

Stark, Barbara wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
>