Re: [v6ops] CPE Prefix Sub-Delegation on LAN

Bruce Zamaere <bzamaere@gmail.com> Thu, 23 December 2010 13:51 UTC

Return-Path: <bzamaere@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E006E3A672E for <v6ops@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Dec 2010 05:51:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.401, 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 aCFoHQYZwO2W for <v6ops@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Dec 2010 05:51:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qw0-f44.google.com (mail-qw0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 085AB3A66B4 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Dec 2010 05:51:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by qwg5 with SMTP id 5so6357500qwg.31 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Dec 2010 05:53:42 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=4gtKi8TbKPwhsxclu+SjXntrVT28OW+HoJKGGJ8D16o=; b=nncsA4yFypycyfYO2/aJJRgSpiBe09BG9HLZSvXg2lqkzy/Qit9nF8nvS8IO1JxoLw Z6RCPmBhxCbrINNWuoHP+zHs0F9vl2eEEqJ5iS6pSxbdYZMnTqk5Pa9IS/OmbtqRS2mi dBGUKlcFwgY0aK0oqrnDtFrbSdPJ6v9ClBQro=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=lygLdpRwG7mFcxUoN4bI0kWGVQQeY1GMq314hy6E/cxSRMh+aMl0aGv1yjzRaRCoco nsOLf6o85wo2bF2nBt1BGzfSFY1oLIyqAsIU90kpGORw+cLB+sZAD/DtAk3tMyx4q5mM FCi9rgXcx0NLor5w9Wdhw2aptLAmK7HG8jmAA=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.98.131 with SMTP id q3mr2273868qcn.236.1293112421883; Thu, 23 Dec 2010 05:53:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.229.213.14 with HTTP; Thu, 23 Dec 2010 05:53:41 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <7E338A9A7F416C4AB2BA4D4E2DEBA0844F58EC45CA@sg2019z.corproot.net>
References: <7E338A9A7F416C4AB2BA4D4E2DEBA0844F58EC451F@sg2019z.corproot.net> <A9704C3A-2D7C-432D-A74B-C4F26566CE0A@cisco.com> <7E338A9A7F416C4AB2BA4D4E2DEBA0844F58EC45CA@sg2019z.corproot.net>
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 14:53:41 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTinrSmWAOrDXVX9PaSHYnoumnUjTznhLP-jDBsFq@mail.gmail.com>
From: Bruce Zamaere <bzamaere@gmail.com>
To: Guillaume.Leclanche@swisscom.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] CPE Prefix Sub-Delegation on LAN
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 13:51:43 -0000

Guillaume,

This is an interesting discussion and I too would very much like to
see more work into this. Our current research is focused on developing
a robust multi-homed residential gateway that can facilitate the
delivery of home-based healthcare services. It would be 'nice' to have
different local subnets for different applications or services in this
case.

On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 7:27 PM, <Guillaume.Leclanche@swisscom.com> wrote:
>
> Everything else could be solved via configuration of the CPE, and I think
> we expect most of the users with this design to be able to log in to their CPE
> and configure a "cluster" or whatever it should be called. Especially when it
> comes to using this design for multi-homing the end hosts, then it has to be
> solved via configuration because no basic user will try to multi-home.

I don't have a solution up my sleeve but I believe it should be
possible to define mechanisms that would allow even "basic users" to
take advantage of multi-homing. This is an important consideration for
my research. In line with this, I am also interested in supporting
SCTP enabled endpoints. Now I haven't thought about this much, but
would it be possible for a CPE that has received prefixes from
multiple upstream ISPs to allocate IPs from each of these prefixes to
SCTP capable hosts?

regards,

/Bruce.