RE: Liaison from BBF

"Hemant Singh (shemant)" <> Tue, 10 November 2009 00:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D336928C27B for <>; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 16:19:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.709
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.709 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.290, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Yj18nfRZbObu for <>; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 16:19:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C963B3A68A0 for <>; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 16:19:34 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results:; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApoEAAdA+EqtJV2d/2dsb2JhbADGKJdGgjiCBgSBaA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,712,1249257600"; d="scan'208";a="67136875"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 10 Nov 2009 00:20:00 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nAA0K0aq016368; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:20:00 GMT
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 9 Nov 2009 18:20:00 -0600
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: Liaison from BBF
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 18:19:59 -0600
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Thread-Topic: Liaison from BBF
Thread-Index: AcphW6XlYiZ9jMeZSzSiHHvX2u8UrgAAbw7wAAywrdAAAfbV4AAAk4cwAAA0I/A=
References: <><><><><><> <> <> <>
From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <>
To: "David Allan I" <>, "Manfredi, Albert E" <>, "Mikael Abrahamsson" <>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Nov 2009 00:20:00.0480 (UTC) FILETIME=[8A7DB600:01CA619B]
Cc: IPv6 Operations <>,
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:19:35 -0000


If a document can be pointed to that uses the tagged domains, that would
be useful.  I, Wes, and, Ole Troan during the March IETF were talking of
regular bridged networks. Once we see what's going on for data
forwarding in the tagged domain you speak of, we can see what to do
about it.



-----Original Message-----
From: David Allan I [] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 9:14 AM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant); Manfredi, Albert E; Mikael Abrahamsson
Cc:; IPv6 Operations
Subject: RE: Liaison from BBF

Hi Hemant:

w.r.t. bridged mode, You folks may have shot it down but is is deployed.
And frequently implemented as multiple tagged domains in the home such
that not all tags get the same treatment going outside the home....hence
there is some containment of the issues you identify....

Simply FYI

-----Original Message-----
From: Hemant Singh (shemant) [] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 9:03 AM
To: David Allan I; Manfredi, Albert E; Mikael Abrahamsson
Cc:; IPv6 Operations
Subject: RE: Liaison from BBF

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [] On Behalf Of
David Allan I
>Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 8:00 AM
>To: Manfredi, Albert E; Mikael Abrahamsson
>Subject: RE: Liaison from BBF


>There are a couple of scenarios to consider..

>1) Simple bridging from the home, hence a number of NIC address will
appear at the edge router...

We have so shot down this model in v6ops during the March 2009 IETF -
please see v6ops archives around this date.  If a home router bridges
all traffic from the home then let's say, Apple TV video in the home
will actually to the SP!  Or as Wes said during that time, "I am doing
my private tax returns and the data went to the SP"!

>2) Retail model for RGs, which is how I bought mine... My modem came
from my DSL provider, but as it had no wireless, so I turned off all
higher layer functions and front ended it with a Belkin box >bought over
the counter... 

Yes, this is a very common scenario that we are addressing in the IETF
v6ops IPv6 CE home router.