Re: [homegate] [v6ops] CPE Prefix Sub-Delegation on LAN

Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> Wed, 19 January 2011 03:41 UTC

Return-Path: <joelja@bogus.com>
X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B259F28C0FD; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 19:41:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.905
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.905 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.094, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LOuqJAFaYJKZ; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 19:41:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 904C128C0F7; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 19:41:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from joelja-mac.lan (c-98-234-216-143.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [98.234.216.143]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p0J3iCFM089522 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 19 Jan 2011 03:44:13 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com)
Message-ID: <4D365E0C.3050405@bogus.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 19:44:12 -0800
From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mark Smith <ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org>
References: <7E338A9A7F416C4AB2BA4D4E2DEBA0844F58EC451F@sg2019z.corproot.net> <A9704C3A-2D7C-432D-A74B-C4F26566CE0A@cisco.com> <7E338A9A7F416C4AB2BA4D4E2DEBA0844F58EC45CA@sg2019z.corproot.net> <129F694F-9979-45EC-B3D3-35AD5EBCC3F1@employees.org> <20101223231240.6fda94fd@opy.nosense.org>
In-Reply-To: <20101223231240.6fda94fd@opy.nosense.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 06:25:34 -0800
Cc: Guillaume.Leclanche@swisscom.com, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, homegate@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [homegate] [v6ops] CPE Prefix Sub-Delegation on LAN
X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion <homegate.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate>, <mailto:homegate-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/homegate>
List-Post: <mailto:homegate@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:homegate-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate>, <mailto:homegate-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 03:41:49 -0000

On 12/23/10 4:42 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 13:06:23 +0100 Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
> wrote:
> 
>> [included the homenet list]
>> 
>>> There might be some work to do to say how the dhcpv6 server in
>>> the CPE should get the prefix received from the ISP, also when
>>> the ISP is not using DHCPv6. For example, with 6rd. However,
>>> since the 6rd parameters have to be pre-provisioned or given via
>>> DHCP(v4), I can imagine that there's a way to sort this out
>>> without too much pain.
>> 
>> with regards to 6rd, there is nothing special. a 6rd delegated
>> prefix is just like an DHCP PD prefix, for the purpose of internal
>> prefix assignment.
>> 
>> this problem within the charter of the (rejected) homenet WG
>> effort.
>> 
>> there are many ways internal prefix assignment and distribution of
>> other configuration information can be done. many of the ideas were
>> discussed during the zerouter BOF (which also failed making it into
>> a WG).
>> 
>> - Multi-link subnet routing (a shared off link /64 among all nodes.
>> host routes in OSPF) - ND proxy (restricted topology) -
>> hierarchical DHCP prefix delegation (restricted topology) - zOSPF
>> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dimitri-zospf/) using a new
>> LSA in OSPF to distribute the site prefix plus a mechanism for 
>> collision detection.
>> 
> 
> Another possible addition to the list could be some of the mesh
> routing protocols that have/are being developed for wireless and/or
> sensor networks. As laptops have overtaken desktops in sales, and
> they usually come with wired and wireless interfaces, it probably
> wouldn't be much of an unacceptable burden for them to also act mesh
> routers. They'll do more throughput and have faster CPUs than most
> routers that would be present in most residential and SOHO
> environments.


Lateish commentary on this... I suspect that the operational experience
with v6 mesh networks is a little shallow to produce great
recomendations there... In addition to zerorouter here has been if I
recall real discussion of this in manet and autoconf.

> Regards, Mark.
> 
>> in my view this requires new work.
>> 
>> cheers, Ole _______________________________________________ v6ops
>> mailing list v6ops@ietf.org 
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list 
> v6ops@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>