Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-03

[Antonio Querubin <tony@lava.net>]

On Tue, 18 Nov 2008, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

> So in the case that a CPE vendor doesn't want to implement the DHCPv6 server 
> necessary for cascading, I think we should mandate that the first CPE, when 
> it detects that a secondary CPE is connected on the LAN side, becomes a 
> transparent bridge. (Insert DHCPv6 option to make this happen.)

I'd prefer that each CPE router default to sub-delegating a fraction 
(user-configurable but with reasonable defaults) of the prefix delegated 
from it's 'upstream' CPE router.  The fraction would determine how many 
levels of nesting are possible and how large the downstream CPE fan-out is 
at each nesting level.  This might be more scalable since it means more 
consistent CPE behaviour regardless of whether it's the first downstream 
CPE router or the last.  One problem though is how does a CPE know when to 
actually delegate/reserve prefixes to a connected device which may or may 
not be a router.

> In the case of non-functional IPv6 but working IPv4, it's probably best to 
> not let hosts autoconfigure addresses and also not have RAs create default 
> gateways, because some OSes take the former to mean that there is working 
> IPv6 and others the latter.

How about auto-enabling 6to4 assuming it can actually reach a 
192.88.99l.1 gateway?


Antonio Querubin
whois:  AQ7-ARIN