Subject: Another requirement [Re: New (-02) version of IPv6 CPE Router draft is available for review]

From: Francois-Xavier Le Bail <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 07:16:39 -0700 (PDT)

Another requirement:

The CPE should install a discard (null) or unreachable route for the
delegated prefix.

Without, a packet to an unused subnet (belonging to the delegated prefix)
will loop between the CPE (default route to the Edge Router) and the Edge
Router (route for the delegated prefix to the CPE).

The only difference between the two options is: with unreachable route
the CPE return ICMPv6 "Destination Unreachable/no route to destination"
message to the source address instead of only silently discard the packet.

Francois-Xavier

---

From: "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 10:57:24 -0400

The route should go to the LAN ports (for the delegate prefix).  If the
LAN ports happen to not be up, doesn't this cause the packet to be
dropped?  If the destination matches a loopback, then the packets can be
serviced by the loopback.  If there is no LAN port (# of LAN ports = 0),
and if the device still does DHCPv6 PD (for other addresses), then a
null route may be appropriate as long as the other addresses get
serviced at a higher priority.

- Wes

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Francois-Xavier Le Bail
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 10:17 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Another requirement [Re: New (-02) version of IPv6 CPE Router
draft is available for review]

Another requirement:

Without, a packet to an unused subnet (belonging to the delegated
prefix) will loop between the CPE (default route to the Edge Router) and
the Edge Router (route for the delegated prefix to the CPE).

The only difference between the two options is: with unreachable route
the CPE return ICMPv6 "Destination Unreachable/no route to destination"
message to the source address instead of only silently discard the
packet.

Francois-Xavier

---

From: Antonio Querubin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 06:10:49 -1000 (HST)

> message to the source address instead of only silently discard the packet.

This would definately be a good idea for the first CPE router that gets 
delegated the big block of /56 or /48 (whatever) from the ISP.  But what 
if it's one of the cascaded routers farther downstream?  Some intelligent 
decisions would need to be made by the router - particularly the amount of 
address space to re-sub-delegate (if that's the right term) to downstream 
routers.

Antonio Querubin
whois:  AQ7-ARIN

---

From: Antonio Querubin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 06:25:36 -1000 (HST)

> delegated the big block of /56 or /48 (whatever) from the ISP.  But what if 
> it's one of the cascaded routers farther downstream?  Some intelligent

Never mind - too early in the morning.  The choice to reply with an 
unreachable or just silently discard for unused subnets/addresses within 
delegated prefix should be a vendor option though.

Antonio Querubin
whois:  AQ7-ARIN