Subject: Re: new draft on IPv6 CPE router available for review

From: Remi Denis-Courmont <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 11:36:39 +0200

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 13:14:22 -0400, "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)"

<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Please review this draft.

> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-00.txt

Section 6.1 seems to be a reinvention of RFC4605. I am also confused as to

how multicast should be forwarded (or not) between the multiple LAN

interfaces, if there are more than one.

Also, IMHO, the document lacks (adequate) guidance on the chaining of CPEs.

This is a real life problem, which in IPv4 is typically "solved" through

layering of NATs. It might not be wise to ignore the issue in IPv6. I guess

one solution is to have the CPE revert to bridging (but loops may occur),

while another solution is to _mandate_ support for prefix sub-delegation.

-- 

Rémi Denis-Courmont

http://www.remlab.net

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 14:34:39 +0300

Hi,
 
Are you interested also to specifically cover similarly acting cellular
phones in this document? If so, I might be able to contribute text on
those aspects if needed.
 
In 3GPP there is discussion ongoing for supporting DHCPv6 PD for
cellulars. I.e. the phone would get IPv6 address statelessly from the
cellular network for its WAN interface, and with DHCPv6 PD it would get
prefixes to be used in local WLAN/Bluetooth PAN/USB/LAN/whatever
network. The same discussion will surely happen in WiMAX Forum and 3GPP2
if it already hasn't. It would be good if IETF would have a document to
offer for those organizations.
 
The cellular case would likely be pretty similar to home deployment
(well, mobile home), and the initial configuration would be provided by
the service provider. The user of the cellular of course should not be
required to do any configuration changes whatsoever, although there
could be feature specific UI or web interface (accessible from local
network) available. Service provider would most likely not do any active
configuration, but of course could push updated settings if required
(thus in cellular case there most likely would/should not be need for
routing protocols/MIBs).
 
Best regards,
 
Teemu

________________________________

	From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On Behalf Of ext Wes Beebee (wbeebee)
	Sent: 30 June, 2008 20:14
	To: [email-masked]
	Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant)
	Subject: new draft on IPv6 CPE router available for review

	v6ops folks,

	 
	The Abstract of the draft is snipped below.
	 
	Abstract
	
	   This document recommends IPv6 behavior for Customer Premises
	   Equipment (CPE) routers in Internet-enabled homes and small
offices.

	Thanks.
	 
	Hemant & Wes.

---

From: Shane Kerr <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 16:59:46 +0200

Wes,

> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-00.txt

5.5.  Stateful DHCPv6 server requirements for the CPE Router

   The CPE Router may support a stateful DHCPv6 server to serve clients
   on the CPE Router LAN interface(s).  If the CPE Router needs to
   support a stateful DHCPv6 server, then more details will be added to
   this section specifying the minimal functionality that the stateful
   DHCPv6 server needs to support.

Perhaps you could ask the good folks in the DHC working group to
comment on this section?

I think the state of DHCPv6 technology is too immature to require it
for a CPE router (although DOCSIS 2.0 requires it, so maybe not), but
it does have a lot of potential benefits (such as chaining information
found in a prefix delegation from the Service Provider to hosts on the
inside).

--
Shane

---

From: "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 15:59:42 -0400

We can change the title from "Stateful DHCPv6 server requirements for
the CPE Router" to "Stateful DHCPv6 server".  In the section, please
note that we say it "may support" a stateful DHCPv6 server.  We agree
that we cannot force a CPE router to support a stateful DHCPv6 server,
although there are many benefits if it does.

- Wes

-----Original Message-----
From: Shane Kerr [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 11:00 AM
To: Wes Beebee (wbeebee)
Cc: [email-masked]; Hemant Singh (shemant)
Subject: Re: new draft on IPv6 CPE router available for review

Wes,

Perhaps you could ask the good folks in the DHC working group to comment
on this section?

I think the state of DHCPv6 technology is too immature to require it for
a CPE router (although DOCSIS 2.0 requires it, so maybe not), but it
does have a lot of potential benefits (such as chaining information
found in a prefix delegation from the Service Provider to hosts on the
inside).

--
Shane