RE: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft

["Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" <wbeebee@cisco.com>]

Yeah - a very detailed discussion needs to be had here - and a document
to be written.  Perhaps we can have this discussion on this mailer.
However, it is too much detail for the CPE router document.

- Wes 

-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Baker (fred) 
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 4:13 PM
To: Wes Beebee (wbeebee)
Cc: james woodyatt; IPv6 Operations
Subject: Re: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft

As I said, there is a very reasonable algorithm in the most common case,
which is that the home router is the only router present. To go beyond
that, I think your document should be referring to the implementation of
another RFC, and to my knowledge that hasn't been written. That was the
consensus of the meeting at IETF 74, you will recall.

On Jul 20, 2009, at 12:13 PM, Wes Beebee (wbeebee) wrote:

>> By the way, there are many words of caution that apply to auto-sub-
> delegation of prefixes. In general, one
>> wants them to aggregate in a nice way without all the issues of
> renumbering. That means in part that there must
>> be some way to recognize when it is inappropriate to use the
> algorithm, such as saying that it is appropriate
>> to networks using PA prefixes and in which internal aggregation is 
>> not
> in use. If my upstream gives me a /60,
>> there isn't a lot to discuss. If the upstream gives a /56 or a /48 
>> and
> the site in question has multiple
>> campuses, auto-sub-delegation is probably pretty difficult to get
> right.
>
> Perhaps what we need here is a default algorithm for auto-sub- 
> delegation that produces reasonable results in common cases with a 
> manual override so that if you don't like the results, you can always 
> do it yourself.
>
> - Wes