RE: But are we talking IPv6 only? That's how I read the draft. (Re:Some suggestions for draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-03)

"Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Fri, 29 August 2008 15:12 UTC

Return-Path: <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 534DB3A67B0 for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 08:12:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.847
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.847 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.452, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 Kxh2eG295qPN for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 08:12:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B6713A69CC for <v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 08:12:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>) id 1KZ5Vx-000KOA-SU for v6ops-data@psg.com; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 15:03:53 +0000
Received: from [130.76.32.69] (helo=blv-smtpout-01.boeing.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>) id 1KZ5Vq-000KMy-RH for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 15:03:51 +0000
Received: from slb-av-01.boeing.com (slb-av-01.boeing.com [129.172.13.4]) by blv-smtpout-01.ns.cs.boeing.com (8.14.0/8.14.0/8.14.0/SMTPOUT) with ESMTP id m7TF3fp9017290 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 29 Aug 2008 08:03:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slb-av-01.boeing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by slb-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.0/8.14.0/DOWNSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id m7TF3fM2001366; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 08:03:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from XCH-NWBH-11.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch-nwbh-11.nw.nos.boeing.com [130.247.55.84]) by slb-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.0/8.14.0/UPSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id m7TF3UBx000860; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 08:03:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.54.35]) by XCH-NWBH-11.nw.nos.boeing.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 29 Aug 2008 08:03:38 -0700
x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: But are we talking IPv6 only? That's how I read the draft. (Re:Some suggestions for draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-03)
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 08:03:37 -0700
Message-ID: <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A104E938FA@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com>
In-Reply-To: <48B7E397.6050502@free.fr>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: But are we talking IPv6 only? That's how I read the draft. (Re:Some suggestions for draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-03)
Thread-Index: AckJzjyX4yO8SiQOQsGJMJ+BtVH/RwAGIB3g
References: <20080824204553.08131c65.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> <48B1CCE8.1070305@gmail.com> <01af01c9065b$b4602440$c2f0200a@cisco.com> <48B23391.1090503@gmail.com> <01cd01c90672$a57c8790$c2f0200a@cisco.com> <48B31DA3.6080001@gmail.com> <07d201c906f7$50a85e30$c2f0200a@cisco.com> <48B32B43.5010103@gmail.com> <084c01c906fe$f9bf1840$c2f0200a@cisco.com> <48B33430.40704@gmail.com> <A31EB889-2BD9-4283-A408-AB6DCC1D568A@suspicious.org> <08be01c90712$d876cd40$c2f0200a@cisco.com> <20080827194713.23271bd1.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> <CD947C45-58F7-47F1-807F-A276490B1E39@apple.com> <0e6001c908a2$b8fcf700$c2f0200a@cisco.com> <F0E4B018-AA5E-4344-A40B-3F6D974B7EA1@apple.com> <001b01c908ac$2b7d5140$c2f0200a@cisco.com> <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A104E93359@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com> <05ad01c90922$854aa710$c2f0200a@cisco.com> <FD70B36F-FCD4-4BC4-9368-C0BEE1B162F0@apple.com> <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A104E93603@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boein! !g.com> < 48B7E397.6050502@free.fr>
From: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: Rémi Després <remi.despres@free.fr>
Cc: james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Aug 2008 15:03:38.0476 (UTC) FILETIME=[6ABF62C0:01C909E8]
Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <v6ops.ops.ietf.org>

 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Rémi Després [mailto:remi.despres@free.fr] 
>Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 4:55 AM
>To: Templin, Fred L
>Cc: james woodyatt; IPv6 Operations
>Subject: Re: But are we talking IPv6 only? That's how I read 
>the draft. (Re:Some suggestions for 
>draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-03)
>
>Templin, Fred L   (m/j/a) 8/28/08 10:05 PM:
>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: james woodyatt [mailto:jhw@apple.com] 
>
>>> The minimum set of models I think we should consider are..
>>>
>>> A) CPE is a router connected to a native IPv6 service 
>provider with  
>>> prefix delegation.  Note: this includes dual-stack-lite CPE, as  
>>> currently proposed.
>>>
>>> B) CPE is an IPv4/NAT router connected to a service provider where  
>>> IPv6-in-IPv4 tunneling is available with a default route to 
>>> the public  
>>> default-free zone, e.g. 6to4, tunnel-broker, etc.
>>>
>>> Are there *any* other realistic models to consider for 
>residential CPE?
>
>Not that I see, understanding that 6rd (deployed by Free of the Iliad 
>Group, and described in draft-despres-6rd-00) is in the list of B.
>
>> CPE is an IPv4/NAT router connected to a service provider
>> where IPv6-in-IPv4 tunneling is available with a default
>> route to a border gateway for the service provider, e.g.,
>> ISATAP (with private IPv4 address on the CPE's provider-
>> facing interface).
>
>- ISATAP is a tool that assigns full /128 addresses to IPv6 hosts of 
>IPv4-only sites.
>- If my understanding of the subject is right, it is therefore not a 
>tool to assign an IPv6 prefix to a router CPE behind which 
>several hosts 
>have teir individual IPv6 addresses. (A prefix shorter than /128 would 
>be necesssary, typically /48 to /64).

Sorry, but that is too limited a view. ISATAP routers can
indeed be assigned prefixes via DHCPv6 IPv6 prefix delegation
(or manual config) and can function as IPv6 routers for
more-specific prefixes than just ::/0.

In other words, there are "traditional" ISATAP routers that
service default routes for forwarding to end systems outside
of the site and ISATAP routers that service more-specific
routes for forwarding to end systems within the site; even
if the end systems are deeply nested in "sites-within-sites".

Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com  

>
>Regards,
>
>RD
>