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)

[james woodyatt <[e-mail]>]

On Aug 28, 2008, at 08:27, Dan Wing wrote:
>
> But the assumed model(s) need to be explained, in the draft,
> so that it is clear how those models apply to dual-stack-lite
> and to IVI/NAT64/NAT-PT -- all of which change the assumptions
> (due to lack of publicly-routable v4 address for some of
> those solutions).  Or, alternatively, if it is this draft's
> intent that its model for v6-in-v4 is only intended to work
> if the CPE has a publicly-routable v4 address.

I'll expand on the relevant models for IPv6 transition mechanisms and  
dual-stack service providers in the next revision of the draft.

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?


--
james woodyatt <[e-mail]>
member of technical staff, communications engineering