Re: Open issues list? [Re: New (-02) version of IPv6 CPE Router draft is available for review]

[Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>]

On 30 jul 2008, at 18:30, james woodyatt wrote:

> Unique local address prefixes are only really useful when the CPE  
> LAN is segmented into more than one link without any bridges between  
> them, but they still within the same administrative domain and  
> routing policy must be used to separate them.  These topologies  
> are... rare... in residential networks.  (I don't know how rare, but  
> I'd be surprised if they account for more than a tenth of a percent  
> of all deployments.)

Hm, I've seen the situation where people daisy chain two (or more) NAT  
boxes, for instance, an Airport Extreme doing NAT connecting to an ISP- 
provided ADSL modem doing NAT.

In IPv6 I expect the multi-subnet configuration to become more common  
over time as more and more service providers want to put networked  
devices in the home, and paranoid users will want to split their home  
network into a semi-public part and a private part where they don't  
have to worry about being spied upon by their refrigirator. Especially  
if service providers take it upon themselves to build such a solution  
on behalf of the users, for instance, to make sure the user doesn't  
mess with the IPTV connectivity.

Since unlike with v4 NAT, you can't do multisubnet with v6 without  
help from the other box and the ISP, it's important that we  
accommodate this use case.