Re: draft-durand-dual-stack-lite-00 general comments

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

On 7/27/08 1:25 PM, "Pekka Savola" <pekkas@netcore.fi> wrote:


> The description of the proposal seems somewhat on the lengthy side.
> Essentially, it seems that the proposal essentially requires the
> following:
>
> [...]
> 
>   3) either (unspecified in this document):
>      a) a method to figure out which customers support this approach (a
>         significant issue?) and turn off v4 DHCP on those customer links;
>      b) a change in the client code to first obtain v6 address and tunnel
>         endpoint information, and if that is obtained, not get a DHCPv4
>         lease; or
>      c) change from providing public v4 addresses to private v4
>         addresses (i.e. worsening existing service to make a new
>         offering more lucrative)
>
> [...]
> 
> Given the difficulty of 3), it seems that the approach is basically
> only suitable in deployments where the users can only connect to the
> ISP using a CPE device provided by the ISP.  Users' own CPE boxes or
> cable/DSL cards attached to a host operating system (e.g. USB sticks)
> would be a challenge. From my perspective, "you must use our CPE
> device (and pay dearly for it!)" service provisioning is rather rare
> and not necessarily a desirable approach from the user POV.  As such
> if 3) can't be solved in a generic fashion, the solution has only
> limited applicability.

I do not expect that this technology will be turned on automatically by any
ISP on its customers without their knowledge, but rather be part of a
different service offering.

The DHCP server already has some logic to decide how to handle different
customers. The same logic can be extended to decide which customer get an
IPv4 address and which one don't but benefit from this tunneled
connectivity.

This can be done with ISP provided home gateway as well as with retail ones.

  - Alain.