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

["Alan Kavanagh" <alan.kavanagh@ericsson.com>]

Yep, makes sense to me and that is what I also see :-)

Alan  

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Templin, Fred L
Sent: March 27, 2009 4:10 PM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant); Brian E Carpenter
Cc: james woodyatt; IPv6 Operations; Wes Beebee (wbeebee)
Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments

Hemant,
 
> [8.2.  Optional RIPng Support
> The CPE Router may support RIPng routing protocol [RFC2080] (Malkin,
G. and R. Minnear, "RIPng for
> IPv6," January 1997.) so that RIPng operates between the CPE Router
and the Service Provider network.
> RIPng has scaling and security implications for the Service Provider
network where one Service
> Provider router may terminate several tens of thousands of CPE
routers. However, RIPng does provide
> one solution from the CPE Router to the Service Provider network for
prefix route injection.]

I don't see it as necessary to run RIPng when the CPEs act as routers.
If we are willing to allow the CPEs to establish automatic IPv6-in-IPv4
tunnels across the provider network to a default IPv6 router, then the
CPEs can access the IPv6 Internet. If the default router knows of a more
direct path to the destination within the provider network, it can also
send an ICMP redirect. So, there is no IPv6 routing protocol but the
tens of thousands of customers still get to configure their CPE devices
as IPv6 routers.

This is exactly the VET model.

Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com
 
> 
> Hemant
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 1:04 PM
> To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
> Cc: james woodyatt; IPv6 Operations; Wes Beebee (wbeebee)
> Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments
> 
> On 2009-03-28 05:10, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
> > Brain and others,
> >
> >> If the broadband forum people don't want a use case with direct
CPE-CPE
> >> communication, that's their choice, but we shouldn't artificially 
> >> restrict this in the base spec for CPEs, IMHO. We write IPv6 basic 
> >> standards; they apply them to their use cases.
> >
> > For past two days or so, we couldn't understand what scenario was
James talking about.  I and more
> folks thought one home to another home communications were being
discussed but actually what James
> was looking at was a single home and this home's networking.  We also
had a disconnect with James
> because it wasn't told to us that there was a hub sitting behind the
broadband modem and then a CPE
> Rtr is behind the hub.  We assumed the CPE Rtr was directly connected
to the broadband modem. Now
> that all things are clarified and we know it's one single home being
discussed, we will look into
> common scenarios that Service Providers have in mind and take it from
there.
> 
> Yes, but if we conclude that it's desirable in general for CPE routers

> to behave like routers on their upstream link, AND if some ISPs don't 
> want that, it should be a configuration issue to switch such behaviour

> on or off. IMHO.
> 
>    Brian