RE: But are we talking IPv6 only? That's how I read the draft. (Re: Some suggestions for draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-03)

["Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com>]

> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: james woodyatt [mailto:jhw@apple.com] 
> >Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 1:50 PM
> >To: IPv6 Operations
> >Subject: Re: But are we talking IPv6 only? That's how I read 
> >the draft. (Re: Some suggestions for 
> >draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-03)
> >
> >On Aug 28, 2008, at 13:05, Templin, Fred L wrote:
> >> [I wrote:]
> >>>
> >>> The minimum set of models I think we should consider are..
> >>>
> >>> A) CPE is a router connected to a native IPv6 service 
> provider with
> >>> prefix delegation.  Note: this includes dual-stack-lite CPE, as
> >>> currently proposed.
> >>>
> >>> B) CPE is an IPv4/NAT router connected to a service provider where
> >>> IPv6-in-IPv4 tunneling is available with a default route to
> >>> the public
> >>> default-free zone, e.g. 6to4, tunnel-broker, etc.
> >>>
> >>> Are there *any* other realistic models to consider for 
> residential  
> >>> CPE?
> >>
> >> CPE is an IPv4/NAT router connected to a service provider
> >> where IPv6-in-IPv4 tunneling is available with a default
> >> route to a border gateway for the service provider, e.g.,
> >> ISATAP (with private IPv4 address on the CPE's provider-
> >> facing interface).
> >
> >
> >Please correct me if I'm wrong... that's just B) where the 
> >tunnel is ISATAP.  Right?
> 
> The distinction being drawn between B) and this (call it C),
> I guess) is that C) entails a private IPv4 address on the
> CPE provider-facing interace; not a public one.

Both SNAT and Dual-Stack Lite also give private IPv4 addresses
to the CPE.  Figure 1 of draft-droms-softwires-snat-01.txt shows 
the CPE being given a 10.0.0.1 address (RFC1918).  
Sections 4.5 and 4.6 of draft-durand-dual-stack-lite-00.txt 
discuss a Carrier Grade NAT; I expect the IPv4 addresses between
the IPv4 (half of the) CPE and the CGN would be private 
addresses.

-d