Subject: why some features for CE Rtr moved to Phase II

From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:35:28 -0600

Here is a list of gross features that moved to Phase II for the CE Rtr
along with justification as to why.

Mcast/MLD Proxy - SP feedback told us they don't even have v4 mcast
deployed so they don't want mcast in Phase I.   Further IPv6 transition
mechanisms like 6rd, or 6to4 won't be able to support mcast given the
tunnel technology being used by these mechanisms. DS-Lite mcast is TBD.
So we thought why not deal with mcast as task in Phase II combined with
a transition tech that will complicate the state machine of the CE
Router.  

DNS - people have to discuss DNS Proxy vs. recursive DNS server to be
supported in the CE Router device.  Frankly we recommend a recursive DNS
server, but the discussion has to happen within the design team and then
a decision discussed in v6ops.  Further DNS64 is recommended in the CE
Rtr device but DNS64 is not in RFC form.

ND Proxy - The ND Proxy RFC 4389 is an Experimental RFC that a v6ops
document cannot reference.   Therefore  a new I-D has been submitted to
6man today to deal with this issue.  See
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-wbeebee-6man-nd-proxy-std-00.txt

Prefix sub-delegation - this is clearly some new work TBD in 6man before
it can be added to the CE Router doc.

Qos, Path MTU - ran out of time before this IETF to put in Qos for Phase
I. Path MTU doesn't have clear solutions and thus didn't make sense to
wrestle with it in  Phase I.

IPv6 transition mechanisms - clearly being in draft form are best punted
to Phase II.

Multiple WAN interfaces - default route selection problem is an open
question.

Conceptual configuration variables - may add one or two in Phase I in
-03 version or if not, the complexity of Phase II will add such
variables

Managability - SP's have to give more feedback before this work can be
completed.

Hemant

---

From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:55:57 -0600

v6ops folks,

Is this email archived on the list enough for the justification feedback
on the CE Rtr  or would folks prefer we add such info to the Phase I
draft itself as well?

Thanks,

Hemant

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Hemant Singh (shemant)
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 6:35 AM
To: IPv6 Operations
Subject: why some features for CE Rtr moved to Phase II

Hemant

---

From: Mark Baugher <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:14:09 -0800

Hemant,

On Nov 10, 2009, at 1:35 PM, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:

> DNS - people have to discuss DNS Proxy vs. recursive DNS server to be supported in the CE Router device.  Frankly we recommend a recursive DNS server, but the discussion has to happen within the design team and then a decision discussed in v6ops. 

Have you considered the mischief that can result on vulnerable home gateways, i.e. practically all CE routers on the market?

Mark

---

From: james woodyatt <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:55:09 -0800

> Have you considered the mischief that can result on vulnerable home gateways, i.e. practically all CE routers on the market?

Easy there.  It is not the case that *practically all* CPE routers on the market with integrated recursive DNS servers are running open forwarders.  Just the poorly implemented ones.  I can point at a well-known counter-example if I must.

--
james woodyatt <[email-masked]>
member of technical staff, communications engineering