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

["Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com>]

>Changing the topic slightly, it seems to me that one of the big
challenges 
>for the CPER is determining how the prefix sub-delegation behaviour
should 
>be when you do have cascaded devices.  Current IPv4 devices just avoid
the 
>issue by doing NAT upon NAT.  If IPv6 frees users from limits on
addresses 
>and subnets then the CPER behaviour should be designed to automatically

>handle the partitioning of the SP-delegated /56 or /48 among 2 or more 
>downstream CPERs.  Should we try to spell out a recommended behaviour
in 
>more detail or are we gonna leave that up to vendor implementation?


Please see emails in the v6ops mailer that transpired were very early
that discussed this issue.  We close the issue and recommended using
DHCPv6 server in the CPER and not use NAT like IPV4.  Please read the
cascaded router section 6 of our draft and we have recommended
sub-delegation.  Of, course the deployment must also support DHCPv6 PD.
It is intended that the sub-delegation is automatic in the CPER but we
don't plan to spell in out - it's left to vendor implementation.  

Hemant