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

This is non-normative language, in the abstract of RFC 4191. Normative references to RFC 4191 purely apply to the protocol, and do not apply to non-normative statements in that RFC about how one might or might not configure the elements of that protocol. The goal of not having too many routes advertised is worthy, and does need to be given serious consideration in the design of any algorithm that would derive the routes in an automated manner.

Barbara

From: Wes Beebee (wbeebee) [mailto:wbeebee@cisco.com]
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 4:56 PM
To: Stark, Barbara; jhw@apple.com; v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments

In the Abstract, RFC 4191 says explicitly:

"The preference values and specific routes advertised to hosts require administrative configuration; they are not automatically derived from routing tables."

Further, throughout RFC 4191, they give examples that illustrate why they make this statement. The problems (briefly) are stability of routes, more than 17 routes getting advertised (too many routes), etc.

- Wes

From: Stark, Barbara [mailto:bs7652@att.com]
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 4:44 PM
To: Wes Beebee (wbeebee); jhw@apple.com; v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments

It's not clear to me why manual configuration is specified as *the* way to configure these routes (again, I see RA (RFC 4191) from the access network to the CPE Rtr WAN interface as a way to configure the routes). I propose that if a CPE Rtr gets such routes from the WAN that it automatically put those same route prefixes in its LAN RAs. In which case it would not be off by default, but on by default (it would automatically send specific route info if it has specific route info to send).
Barbara

----- Original Message -----
From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
To: james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>; IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant) <shemant@cisco.com>
Sent: Fri Mar 27 15:40:09 2009
Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments

The new text for MSR's is as follows:

"8.7 Multi-homed Host Support (MEDIUM)
The CPE Router MAY support RFC4191 on its LAN interfaces. Small
consumer embedded multi-homed hosts in the home may not have
configurable routing tables. The CPE Router can communicate More
Specific Routes (MSRs) to these hosts to allow them to choose a
preferred router to send traffic to for traffic destined to specific
prefixes configured through manual configuration. Advertisement of MSRs
through RAs is turned off by default."

- Wes

-----Original Message-----
From: james woodyatt [mailto:jhw@apple.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 7:17 PM
To: IPv6 Operations
Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant); Wes Beebee (wbeebee)
Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments

On Mar 25, 2009, at 16:06, james woodyatt wrote:
>
> 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.

I take it back. It's interesting in the other cases as well. Two CPE
routers attached to the same link will exchange their prefixes with MSR
advertisements regardless of whether the RAs from the service provider
have PIO options in them. As they should.

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

*****

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. GA622