RE: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-03.txt WGLC

["Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fred Baker
> Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 7:45 AM
> To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Cc: kurtis@kurtis.pp.se; rbonica@juniper.net
> Subject: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-03.txt WGLC
> 
> This is to initiate a two week working group last call of draft-ietf- 
> v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-03.txt. Please read it now. If you find nits  
> (spelling errors, minor suggested wording changes, etc), comment to  
> the authors; if you find greater issues, such as disagreeing with a  
> statement or finding additional issues that need to be addressed,  
> please post your comments to the list.
> 
> We are looking specifically for comments on the importance of the  
> document as well as its content. If you have read the document and  
> believe it to be of operational utility, that is also an important  
> comment to make.

Document seems useful.

I have an issue with L-9, "The IPv6 CE router MUST support providing
DNS information in the DHCP DNS_SERVERS option [RFC3646]".  This
prevents a network from operating both IPv6-only hosts (which want to
access the IPv4 Internet using DNS64+NAT64, and thus need a DNS64 as
their recursive resolver) and dual-stack hosts (which need a 'normal'
DNS as their recursive resolver) simultaneously.  I just sent email to
the authors and chairs with additional detail, and am shortly going to
publish an Internet Draft discussing this issue in more detail.



Section 3.1 should additionally mention that an end-network
IPv4 CPE that incorporates a NAT also incorporates a DHCPv4 
server.  The inclusion of a DHCP server in the CPE is implied, 
but should be explicitly stated.  The DHCP server in the CPE 
allows the in-home network to be self-sufficient (for IP 
addressing, if not naming).

This is relevant to IPv6 because, I have been told, ULAs
provide a similar "LAN only" address.  This should be
mentioned or a pointer to how hosts inside the home should
use ULAs mentioned.  We do not want streaming between an
in-home NAS and an in-home television to rely on the
WAN link's availability.  This is mentioned (insufficiently)
in Section 4.2 and some of the L-* requirements.


The definition of Service Provider is "a company that ...",
which precludes non-companies such as, for example, a University 
offering service to students in University housing.  Is that intentional?



Many of the enumerated requirements contain multiple "MUSTs" or "SHOULDs".
This makes things complicated, because a vendor (or a customer) cannot say,
for example, "we comply with all of RFCxyz, except L-5" because L-5 contains
three MUSTs and one SHOULD.  Taking L-5 as an example, I suggest changing
from:

OLD:
   L-5:   The IPv6 CE router MUST assign a separate /64 from its
          delegated prefix (and ULA prefix if configured to provide ULA
          addressing) for each of its LAN interfaces.  The IPV6 CE
          router MUST make the interface an advertising interface
          according to [RFC4861].  In router advertisements messages,
          the Prefix Information Option's A/L-bits MUST be set to 1 by
          default; the A/L bits setting SHOULD be user configurable.
NEW:
   L-5:   a. The IPv6 CE router MUST assign a separate /64 from its 
             delegated prefix (and ULA prefix if configured to 
             provide ULA addressing) for each of its LAN interfaces.
          b. The IPV6 CE router MUST make the interface an advertising 
             interface according to [RFC4861].  
          c. In router advertisements messages, the Prefix Information 
             Option's A/L-bits MUST be set to 1 by default; 
          d. the A/L bits setting SHOULD be user configurable.


This would allow a vendor (or a customer) to say "we comply with all of
RFCxyz, except L-5c and L5-d".


Nits are being sent directly to the authors.

-d