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

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

Alain,

Sorry I don't understand.  If any node in the home using an ULA sends a packet out the WAN interface of the CPE Router, the src-addr of the packet used is the GUA before the packet heads out of the node because, as we said in our draft, GUA has larger scope.  So any multi-party host on the Internet sees only the GUA.  I will need a specific example to show me how multi-party communications will break down with ULA and GUA configured on an interface of any node in the home behind the CPE Router or if ULA and GUA is configured on the LAN Interface of the CPE Router.

Thanks.

Hemant

-----Original Message-----
From: Alain Durand [mailto:alain_durand@cable.comcast.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 11:48 AM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant); Ralph Droms (rdroms)
Cc: Mark Townsley (townsley); Jimmy Chuang (cchuang); Rémi Denis-Courmont; v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wes Beebee (wbeebee)
Subject: Re: New (-02) version of IPv6 CPE Router draft is available for review

On 7/21/08 12:43 PM, "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com> wrote:

> I have repeatedly said, I am not convinced the ULA gets appreciable 
> complexity into the CPE Router. Our section 5.5.1 has clearly outlined 
> any complexity and shown it's minimal.  The ULA fixes a very common 
> problem for the CPE Router which is configuring the router without any 
> SP access - the problem is not a corner case.

Hemant,

2 party communications in the presence of mixed ULA & GUA work ok, given proper default address selection rules.

Multi-party communications *with* address referral do not work in the general case in such a mixed environment, regardless of default address selection.

  - Alain.