IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Comments on IPv6 Prefix Subdelegation

"Azinger, Marla" <marla.azinger@frontiercorp.com> Wed, 29 July 2009 11:32 UTC

Return-Path: <marla.azinger@frontiercorp.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 6E0C63A6F11 for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jul 2009 04:32:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 K6FgS4bm7kNw for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jul 2009 04:32:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frontiercorp.com (mail02.frontiercorp.com [66.133.172.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BA713A6A73 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jul 2009 04:32:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([10.160.69.52]) by mail02.frontiercorp.com with ESMTP with TLS id 5503513.410651785; Wed, 29 Jul 2009 07:33:03 -0400
Received: from ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt ([10.160.69.50]) by nyrofcs03exht01 ([10.160.69.52]) with mapi; Wed, 29 Jul 2009 07:32:32 -0400
From: "Azinger, Marla" <marla.azinger@frontiercorp.com>
To: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 07:32:26 -0400
Subject: RE: Comments on IPv6 Prefix Subdelegation
Thread-Topic: Comments on IPv6 Prefix Subdelegation
Thread-Index: AcoQNAyHFy5npD8sSkiazEKu4vN9uwADC1xQ
Message-ID: <2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F1048509A9096@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>
References: <6C2F751B-119F-41D6-878C-C4CFBD57DF14@cisco.com> <2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F10485093E811@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt> <A17AA367-2FC2-4EC8-A3B4-A7EAB1F0C1CC@cisco.com> <2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F10485093E983@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt> <74BEE319-C600-4DF5-B784-445B8CDEA770@cisco.com> <2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F1048509A903E@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt> <FBEE7CCE-BE43-40FD-B252-D74CBD6A16CC@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <FBEE7CCE-BE43-40FD-B252-D74CBD6A16CC@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router@tools.ietf.org>, "draft-donley-ipv6-cpe-rtr-use-cases-and-reqs@tools.ietf.org" <draft-donley-ipv6-cpe-rtr-use-cases-and-reqs@tools.ietf.org>, IETF IPv6 Mailing List <ipv6@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: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 11:32:33 -0000

Great.  Thank you Fred.

-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Baker [mailto:fred@cisco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 3:05 AM
To: Azinger, Marla
Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List; 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 Jul 29, 2009, at 10:35 AM, Azinger, Marla wrote:

> Routing in such an environment calls for a routing protocol. Each CPE
> must run either RIPv6 [RFC2080], IS-IS [RFC5308], or OSPF [RFC5340] on
> a default route and to the homes interal upstream a static default
> route. The issues raised in [RFC3704] also apply, meaning that the two
> CPE routers may each need to observe the source addresses in datagrams
> they handle to divert them to the other CPE to handle upstream

I'll figure something out there. This makes it sound like only the CPE routers have to run a routing protocol; in fact, all of the routers in the home have to run a routing protocol. But yes, something like that.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email