Re: Comments on IPv6 Prefix Subdelegation

John Jason Brzozowski <john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com> Thu, 30 July 2009 15:20 UTC

Return-Path: <john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99CD03A6829 for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jul 2009 08:20:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.673
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.673 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.931, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067]
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 BjCkX2L0qFo8 for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jul 2009 08:20:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from paoakoavas10.cable.comcast.com (paoakoavas10.cable.comcast.com [208.17.35.59]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA7993A6A82 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jul 2009 08:20:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([24.40.15.92]) by paoakoavas10.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP id KP-TDCH7.66165069; Thu, 30 Jul 2009 11:20:16 -0400
Received: from NJCHLEXCMB01.cable.comcast.com ([172.24.2.44]) by PACDCEXCSMTP03.cable.comcast.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 30 Jul 2009 11:20:19 -0400
Received: from 198.137.252.126 ([198.137.252.126]) by NJCHLEXCMB01.cable.comcast.com ([172.24.2.44]) via Exchange Front-End Server webmail.comcast.com ([198.137.252.76]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:20:18 +0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.17.0.090302
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 17:20:15 +0200
Subject: Re: Comments on IPv6 Prefix Subdelegation
From: John Jason Brzozowski <john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com>
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>, IETF IPv6 Mailing List <ipv6@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <C69786CF.B2083%john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com>
Thread-Topic: Comments on IPv6 Prefix Subdelegation
Thread-Index: AcoQ5n1TIYjMKG0LQOSWEX1hob9RvgAQr/Ja
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0907300858460.5086@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Jul 2009 15:20:19.0437 (UTC) FILETIME=[3FC029D0:01CA1129]
Cc: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router@tools.ietf.org, draft-donley-ipv6-cpe-rtr-use-cases-and-reqs@tools.ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:20:36 -0000

> From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
> Organization: People's Front Against WWW
> Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 03:21:50 -0400
> To: IETF IPv6 Mailing List <ipv6@ietf.org>
> Cc: <draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router@tools.ietf.org>,
> <draft-donley-ipv6-cpe-rtr-use-cases-and-reqs@tools.ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: Comments on IPv6 Prefix Subdelegation
> 
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Fred Baker wrote:
> 
>> Um, what does a router do? Look at the example in the text and ask
>> yourself if you want an average user (my canonical "average user" being
>> my daughter, who wanted me to come to her house to install a camera on
>> her computer so she could use it on Skype - "did you try plugging it
>> in?") manually installing routes in each of the four routers when they
>> could in fact learn them from each other directly?
> 
> So, looking at this from another angle, namely deployment. I'm a router
> engineer, I support the use of routing protocols as much as the next
> router engineer, but I think a good question to ask is whether most home
> CPE vendors think RIP for IPv6 is hard to implement, or if this is
> something they consider easy?
[jjmb] implementation difficulty is important as is making sure the
underlying hardware can support it.  Also we may be ok with a routing
protocol but what about someone who is not a router engineer?  Will it be
straightforward enough for everyone else to setup?
> 
> If it's easy to implement RIP for IPv6 then I'm a proponent for that
> model.
> 
> Fred, (just checking) the model you're advocating then is that DHCPv6-PD
> from the main home CPE (with WAN connection) hands out subnets which are
> then announced to all home gateways via RIP(v6) ?
> 
> --
> Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------