[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments

Hi,

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:06:19 -0700
james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com> wrote:

> On Mar 25, 2009, at 12:46, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
> > I have also asked in the past to please give us one compelling  
> > reason to make RFC 4191 get into the CPE Rtr document.  What  
> > particular option from RFC 4191 do you want to use by the CPE Rtr?
> 
> I must have missed the request for "one compelling reason" for CPE  
> routers to send and receive RFC 4191 more specific route information  
> messages on their WAN links.  My apologies.
> 
> Please let me clarify my remarks and narrow my request somewhat, now  
> that I've had a chance to review more of the CPE Router draft.  I am  
> only interested in such RFC 4191 messages when a valid PIO has been  
> received on the WAN link with L=1.  No other cases are interesting.
> 
> The reason I want this should be obvious: so that a CPE router may  
> advertise its local prefix on the WAN link to other nodes so as to  
> eliminate the need for traffic that originates from them to have to  
> hairpin through their default router to be delivered.
> 

I agree with James. An implementation model of ADSL with Ethernet
backhaul (TR-101) is to have all CPE sitting in the same "bridged
Ethernet over ADSL" VLAN, ethernet switched in the local telephone
exchange / C.O., with the default router off site, also in the same
VLAN. Having the CPE announce their prefixes to each other would keep
inter-CPE traffic off of the expensive backhaul links. If P2P
applications/traffic become much more locality aware, this would be of
great benefit.

Regards,
Mark.