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

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



Title: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments
Agree, whole-heartedly!!!   We recommend CMTS service providers block upstream RA's.
 
- Wes


From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stark, Barbara
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 4:47 PM
To: tony@lava.net; swmike@swm.pp.se
Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments

That's an interesting use case, with definite application, but I wonder if it's really compelling in the case of the simple CPE Router.

When CPE Routers are cascaded, the cascaded router is generally directly connected to the upstream router, so that there would be no added efficiencies from this.

Also, service providers that I talk to are quite adamant about not wanting to see RAs coming at them from the WAN interfaces of CPE Routers. I could easily envision some SPs disabling connections where they see RAs. So CPE Routers that did this could potentially create a very bad user experience, if there were Terms and Conditions (that the customer agreed to but didn't read or necessarily understand) that said it was forbidden for them to have their router send RAs.

I would rather if sending RAs out a WAN interface were considered a function for medium/high end business or enterprise routers, but not CPE routers. I think you will see CPE routers supplied by service providers will not do RA (or any other route advertisement) to the WAN.
Barbara