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

[<jeanfrancois.cadiou@orange-ftgroup.com>]

Dear all,

I am following the different mails exchanges from the beginning on the IPv6 CPE document but never contributed.  I would like to make a comment on the following proposals
---------------------------------------
" It would be good if CPEs would also insert DNS addresses in RAs as per RFC 5006. If requiring the support of an experimental RFC is a bridge too far, at the very least say this is a good idea and point to 5006."
---------------------------------------

Moreover some mail exchanges also occurs with proposal made by Tony Hain. See the mail below.
---------------------------------------
De : ipv6-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Brian E Carpenter Envoyé : lundi 17 novembre 2008 04:07 À : alh-ietf@tndh.net Cc : john.loughney@nokia.com; 'Brian Haberman'; ipv6@ietf.org Objet : Re: Node Requirement: New issue 5: Support for RFC 5006
Has anyone reported implementation experience with 5006?
If so, we could discuss reclassifying it IMHO. But perhaps we should separate that question from progressing the node-req update.
   Brian
On 2008-11-16 07:39, Tony Hain wrote:
> The experimental designation is just wrong. We have to break the 
> current requirement to deploy both RA & DHCP if you want to have a working network.
> Each model should be able to stand on its own, and 5006 fills a hole 
> on that side. The 'experiment' is simply there to placate those that 
> want a DHCP-only model. Change the status of the RFC & make it a node 
> requirement...
> 
> Tony
---------------------------------------

I am seconding this proposal in order to support also a simpler model as an alternative to a local DHCPv6 server. 
The minimum set of requirements for an end device to communicate is to get its IP address, DNS server address and default gateway address. 
Assuming that some end devices could later discover its autoconfiguration server in the Broad Band Forum terminology, via initial factory provisionning or some automatic process, RFC5006 support is more that enough in the home gateway to reach this goal in this model. We could then avoid the use of a local DHCP server in the CPE for complex provisionning which has also the drawback of linking service evolutions and CPE evolutions. 
Even if support of RFC5006 is very poor in end devices with the exception of latest linux distributions and apart the fact that RFC5006 is experimental, it is a problem of chicken and egg. If not supported in end devices then we do not want it in the CPE and vice et versa. Including it in the CPE is a way/opportunity to move forward and propose an alternative to the DHCP model. 

Regards

JFC




-----Message d'origine-----
De : owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] De la part de Iljitsch van Beijnum
Envoyé : mardi 18 novembre 2008 19:12
À : v6ops Operations
Objet : draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-03

[...]

It would be good if CPEs would also insert DNS addresses in RAs as per RFC 5006. If requiring the support of an experimental RFC is a bridge too far, at the very least say this is a good idea and point to 5006.

It would be useful to tell people to align the timers in RAs with those in the PD delegation for easier renumbering. Note that during renumbering hosts may source packets with the old addresses even though the new ones are already available. This shouldn't cause trouble, but in cases where routes or filter rules are created, multiple sets of these are necessary during transition from one prefix to another.

[...]