Re: new version of the CPE Rtr draft is ready for review

[Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>]

On 2008-12-08 22:57, Mohacsi Janos wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, 8 Dec 2008, Gert Doering wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 05, 2008 at 06:48:53PM +0100, Mohacsi Janos wrote:
>>> Disadvantages:
>>> - Only one /64 could be allocated to end users - no multiple subnet
>>> possible
>>
>> I think this is a serious-enough disadvantage that we would not want to
>> use ND proxy.
> 
> I think NDproxy is one option - option for clueless users how just
> connect their devices directly on the CPE wired/or wireless and not
> configuring any VLANs or subnets.
> 
> I think more than95% percent of the home users belongs to this category.
> More sophisticated methods (DHCPv6 with prefix delegation) could be
> offered to the rest of the users...
> 
> I think ND proxy could be used for mass IPv6 broadband deployment:
> - no configuration required from end users on their router box if
> NDproxy is supported and switched on by default.

The trouble with this argument is: what happens twenty years from
now, when multiple subnets in the home or small office become common,
but the industry-standard $50 CPE uses this model and cannot be
configured to deliver a shorter prefix than /64? That would be just
like the problem we have today where all CPEs are legacy devices
as far as IPv6 is concerned.

    Brian