RE: Another requirement [Re: New (-02) version of IPv6 CPE Router draft is available for review]

["Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" <wbeebee@cisco.com>]

> So, is any additional specification needed and (if so) should it be
done here or within a broader context?

If someone writes some other document on proper population of routing
tables/stewardship of prefixes, then the CPE Router document can
reference that other document - but I think that we can address this
specific issue with a single sentence in the CPE Router document.

- Wes

-----Original Message-----
From: Templin, Fred L [mailto:Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com] 
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 11:44 AM
To: Francois-Xavier Le Bail; v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wes Beebee (wbeebee)
Subject: RE: Another requirement [Re: New (-02) version of IPv6 CPE
Router draft is available for review]

 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Francois-Xavier Le Bail [mailto:fx.lebail@yahoo.com]
>Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 8:12 AM
>To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wes Beebee (wbeebee)
>Subject: RE: Another requirement [Re: New (-02) version of
>IPv6 CPE Router draft is available for review]
>
>--- On Thu, 7/31/08, Wes Beebee (wbeebee) <wbeebee@cisco.com> wrote:
>> The route should go to the LAN ports (for the delegate prefix).  If 
>> the LAN ports happen to not be up, doesn't this cause the packet to 
>> be > dropped?  If the destination matches a loopback, then the 
>> packets can be serviced by the loopback.  If there is no LAN port (# 
>> of LAN ports = 0), and if the device still does DHCPv6 PD (for other 
>> addresses), then a null route may be appropriate as long as the other

>> addresses get serviced at a higher priority.
>
>For example, if the delegated prefix is a /56 and the CPE use a /64 
>prefix for a subnet on a LAN Bridge and another /64 for a subnet on 
>another LAN interface outside the bridge, there are many prefix/subnet 
>not used.
>
>Packet to theses unused prefix/subnet will loop without a discard or 
>unreachable route.

But is this so surprising? Any requesting router that is delegated a
prefix is implicitly responsible for proper stewardship of the prefix;
this is not specific to just the CPE router case.

So, is any additional specification needed and (if so) should it be done
here or within a broader context?
  
Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com

>
>Francois-Xavier
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
>> [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On
>> Behalf Of Francois-Xavier Le Bail
>> Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 10:17 AM
>> To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
>> Subject: Another requirement [Re: New (-02) version of IPv6 CPE 
>> Router draft is available for review]
>> 
>> Another requirement:
>> 
>> The CPE should install a discard (null) or unreachable route for the 
>> delegated prefix.
>> 
>> Without, a packet to an unused subnet (belonging to the delegated
>> prefix) will loop between the CPE (default route to the Edge Router) 
>> and the Edge Router (route for the delegated prefix to the CPE).
>> 
>> The only difference between the two options is: with unreachable 
>> route the CPE return ICMPv6 "Destination Unreachable/no route to 
>> destination"
>> message to the source address instead of only silently discard the 
>> packet.
>> 
>> Francois-Xavier
>
>
>      
>
>