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

Re: Comments on draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-01.txt

On 8 jul 2008, at 20:19, Stark, Barbara wrote:
1. Based on what I'm hearing from the access network side of my company, I'm expecting for retail CPE routers (in the US) to continue to need to support two different IP stacks to the WAN: IPv6/PPP/PPPoE/Ethernet and 
IPv6/Ethernet. Today (in IPv4 retail routers), this is a configurable
option that defaults to IP/Ethernet. I would expect that to be the
default with IPv6, as well.


Wouldn't it be better if this could be provisioned automatically?
2. The document seems to suggest that "numbered" vs. "unnumbered" model is a configuration option (section 5.3.2). I think the CPE router needs to be able to automatically detect what the access network is giving it. It should be pretty apparent if the access network is giving it a global 
IP address or not.


Agree.


3. I disagree with the behavior suggested for "unnumbered" model. I
don't think a CPE router should automatically open up a maintenance
loopback interface just because it doesn't get a global IP address.


Also agree.


As a default, we believe
that the global address that the CPE router selects for its LAN
interface is sufficient for all WAN-side Internet communication,
including VoIP, TR-069, ping, traceroute, etc. [I often do ping tests
from the router when my WAN is having problems].
"Real" routers don't answer pings for addresses on interfaces that are down. So if there's nothing connected to the ethernet, you wouldn't be able to ping. 

Of course we can specify the opposite behavior.


By the way, when I hear about IPv6 and loopback interface in the same
sentence, I usually think about ::1 (or 127.0.0.1 in IPv4). I associate 
loopback network interfaces with SNMP.
In the router world it's normal to have loopback interfaces with global addresses in order to have an address that can be used for management, but also for stuff like BGP.