IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Comments on IPv6 Prefix Subdelegation

"Azinger, Marla" <marla.azinger@frontiercorp.com> Tue, 28 July 2009 11:24 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 704A93A69D5 for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jul 2009 04:24:52 -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 7FF8tUSYw5zp for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jul 2009 04:24:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frontiercorp.com (mail01.frontiercorp.com [66.133.172.19]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86D4A3A6853 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Jul 2009 04:24:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([10.162.69.11]) by mail01.frontiercorp.com with ESMTP with TLS id 4440454.285918748; Tue, 28 Jul 2009 07:24:49 -0400
Received: from ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt ([10.160.69.50]) by nyrofcswnexht02.corp.pvt ([10.162.69.11]) with mapi; Tue, 28 Jul 2009 07:24:49 -0400
From: "Azinger, Marla" <marla.azinger@frontiercorp.com>
To: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 07:24:46 -0400
Subject: RE: Comments on IPv6 Prefix Subdelegation
Thread-Topic: Comments on IPv6 Prefix Subdelegation
Thread-Index: AcoPag7jRlN9vQAtQgqsHMy4n3xaCgACrc9g
Message-ID: <2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F10485093E841@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>
References: <6C2F751B-119F-41D6-878C-C4CFBD57DF14@cisco.com> <2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F10485093E811@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt> <A17AA367-2FC2-4EC8-A3B4-A7EAB1F0C1CC@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <A17AA367-2FC2-4EC8-A3B4-A7EAB1F0C1CC@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
X-esp: ESP<10>= SHA:<0> SHA_FLAGS:<0> UHA:<10> ISC:<0> BAYES:<0> SenderID:<0> DKIM:<0> TS:<0> SIG:<> DSC:<0> TRU_scam_spam: <0> TRU_html_image_spam: <0> TRU_urllinks: <0> TRU_spam2: <0> TRU_marketing_spam: <0> TRU_profanity_spam: <0> TRU_legal_spam: <0> TRU_stock_spam: <0> TRU_watch_spam: <0> TRU_money_spam: <0> TRU_ru_spamsubj: <0> TRU_embedded_image_spam: <0> TRU_phish_spam: <0> TRU_spam1: <0> TRU_lotto_spam: <0> TRU_medical_spam: <0> TRU_playsites: <0> TRU_freehosting: <0> TRU_adult_spam: <0> TRU_misc_spam: <0> URL Real-Time Signatures: <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: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 11:24:52 -0000

Im thinking one step further than the double routers.  For example if these routers are not serviced by something at least the service type of a dedicated T1 to each router then they would be doing VPN.  So there are more requirements that need to be met here to make OSPF a realistic option.

Thank you
Marla

-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Baker [mailto:fred@cisco.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 2:59 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 28, 2009, at 11:39 AM, Azinger, Marla wrote:

> 2.  I have concern regarding the suggestions in section 2.3   Am I  
> interpreting this correctly that you are suggesting upstreams do OSPF 
> over VPN with residential customers?

within their homes?

No, I am suggesting that in a home that has more than one router, one might want an IGP, just like one does in other places.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email