Re: New (-02) version of IPv6 CPE Router draft is available for review

[Alain Durand <alain_durand@cable.comcast.com>]

On 7/21/08 10:57 AM, "Rémi Denis-Courmont" <rdenis@simphalempin.com> wrote:

> Le vendredi 18 juillet 2008 19:25:54 Alain Durand, vous avez écrit :
>> Supporting both ULA & GUA at the same time is also a source of complexity
>> and confusion. The key problem I see is with external referrals in
>> multi-party communications where some of the hosts are inside, and some are
>> outside. Mixing ULA & GUA can have complex consequences, and again
>> generates service call.
> 
> Yeah. Broken RFC3484 implementations will do just that. But all nodes (broken
> and non-broken RFC3484 implementations alike) will *break* without ULA, until
> we have *instantaneous* 100%-reliable and 100%-available upstream connections
> (which we will NEVER have). Without this, the network will simply not work
> until the ISP connection is established (if ever), which is a total
> non-starter. Therefore, it seems like a total non-question that ULA is the
> way to go.


I have said a couple times, I have no objection to using ULA when nothing
else is available. 


>> Also, if I read the text correctly, if the WAN interface gets configured
>> first, no ULA are generated. Which leads to confusing situation depending
>> on whether the customer turns its modem on before or after its CPE.
> 
> You may have a point here.
> 
>> I would rather like the text to recommend to only use ULA when nothing else
>> is available and immediately renumber to GUA when those are acquired.
> 
> And break existing connections on the local network? Total no go.

Simple use short prefix lifetime for ULA and deprecate. Normal renumbering
procedure.

  - Alain.