[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
Manual configuration that may be required to be updated by the Service Provider may be exposed through SNMP in the CPE Router.
 
Therefore, we could provide a way to insert routes into the MSR table through SNMP queries.
 
However, other routes may need to be configured by the end-user, so the MSR table may need to be exposed to the end user as well.
 
- Wes


From: Stark, Barbara [mailto:bs7652@att.com]
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 3:56 PM
To: Alan Kavanagh; Wes Beebee (wbeebee); jhw@apple.com; v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments

Consider a scenario where a home has 2 routers, each connected to a different access network (maybe one is cable and the other DSL). Each SP, in addition to providing Internet access, also provides access to a walled garden of special services accessible only by their subscribers. This walled garden uses an address space not accessible from the Internet. This walled garden might require the CPE router to set up a separate WAN connection, or it might not.

 

Wouldn’t the access networks , in this case, need to tell the CPE routers connected to them that this address space is accessible off this network? And wouldn’t the CPE Routers need to tell the hosts in the LAN which of these walled garden address spaces gets routed through each of them, so hosts know where to send traffic bound for a server off one or the other of these private networks?

 

I’ve seen these things rather often in IPv4, where the CPE Router is statically configured (by the SP) to know what to do. But if the address space needs to change, updating the configuration is clumsy. It seems that the tools available to us with IPv6 could allow us to do better.

Barbara

 

From: Alan Kavanagh [mailto:alan.kavanagh@ericsson.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2009 9:18 PM
To: Stark, Barbara; wbeebee@cisco.com; jhw@apple.com; v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Cc: shemant@cisco.com
Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments

 

Hmm, im a little bit confused here or just missing some of this discussion, but what "routes" are you considering being advertised by the BNG/IP_Edge node and what routes would be then advertised from the WAN to the Home LAN network?

 

Alan K

 


From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stark, Barbara
Sent: March 27, 2009 4:44 PM
To: wbeebee@cisco.com; jhw@apple.com; v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Cc: shemant@cisco.com
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

*****

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. GA625