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>]

> I'll expand on the relevant models for IPv6 transition mechanisms 
> and dual-stack service providers in the next revision of the draft.
>
> 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?

The other IPv6 transition mechanisms (IVI, NAT6, NAT64, and even
NAT-PT) all look and feel like your (A), from the perspective of 
the CPE.  Might want to point that out.

-d