|
SPs always have the option of using remote device configuration
protocols (e.g. SNMP, TR-069) to configure CPE routers that they supply. I do
not, realistically, expect retail CPE routers to support any of these options. For
TR-069, BBF can certainly be expected to define mechanisms to manage the routing
table. I assume that your SNMP suggestions were intended for the cable company managed
routers, and other (e.g. enterprise) SNMP-managed routers. The vast majority of end users will not be able / willing to
configure routing tables. This isn’t that different from firewall
configuration, which terrified the majority of end users, and were the cause
for a large percentage of calls to service provider help desks. CPE Routers
that succeed in the multi-homed environment, will be the ones that implement
automated mechanisms that work. I’ve noticed from a number of comments that there seems to
be a certain disparity between requirements for cable CPE routers, other service
provider CPE routers that may have PHY layer WAN modems in them (non-Ethernet
WAN), and the retail CPE routers that have an Ethernet WAN and can make no
assumption about the nature of the WAN or the service provider supplying that
WAN connection. I think that these retail devices are probably the ones that
could most benefit from an IETF informational document, and wonder if we
shouldn’t focus more on recommendations specifically for them. It sounds
like the cable industry already has its eRouter document and doesn’t really
need this. BBF is writing its document. But the retail guys have no other home. From my perspective, it would be very useful to be able to have
some predictable understanding of the capabilities that a retail CPE router can
reasonably be expected to have. Barbara From: Wes Beebee
(wbeebee) [mailto:wbeebee@cisco.com] 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] 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] 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 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). ***** 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 |