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

["Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" <wbeebee@cisco.com>]

I see the ND Proxy model as having a very limited applicability:

The service provider offers a /64 subnet and the home router has two
different physical media that can't be bridged (eg. Firewire and
Ethernet) - and you need connectivity between the incompatible media
types.  Then, it's appropriate to use ND proxy.  Note, however that ND
proxy cannot be used with a subnet bigger than a /64.

- Wes 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On
Behalf Of james woodyatt
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 12:26 PM
To: IPv6 Operations
Subject: Re: new version of the CPE Rtr draft is ready for review

On Dec 10, 2008, at 06:18, Mohacsi Janos wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Dec 2008, james woodyatt wrote:
>>
>> I disagree.  I foresee a time in the very near future when most 
>> residential users will need at least two subnets, one for their own 
>> use and one for the use of their guests with mobile devices.  I do 
>> not believe residential subscribers will accept systems that require 
>> giving their temporary guests full access to their private home 
>> networks even on a temporary basis.
>
> Then 90% users will buy a new home router.... The current devices are 
> rarely support more than one subnet with the shipped firmware....

Yes, but the firmware in current devices can be upgraded, but it will
only help if the subscriber prefixes are shorter than 64 bits.  This is
why I don't see the ND proxy service model that started this discussion
as a very reasonable one, and I don't think it should be recommended as
Best Current Practice.


--
james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>
member of technical staff, communications engineering