[v6ops] draft-herbst-v6ops-cpeenhancements-00

"Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com> Mon, 08 November 2010 00:16 UTC

Return-Path: <shemant@cisco.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 1F10B3A68E7 for <v6ops@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Nov 2010 16:16:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 I3M1miEhUs1F for <v6ops@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Nov 2010 16:16:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com (rtp-iport-2.cisco.com [64.102.122.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BAC73A68F7 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 7 Nov 2010 16:16:07 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: rtp-iport-2.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhAFAN3P1kytJXHA/2dsb2JhbACBZ6AecZ5cmmECgwmCPQSEWIkN
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.58,311,1286150400"; d="scan'208,217"; a="179518186"
Received: from rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com ([173.37.113.192]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 Nov 2010 00:16:26 +0000
Received: from xbh-rcd-202.cisco.com (xbh-rcd-202.cisco.com [72.163.62.201]) by rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oA80GPVT030511; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 00:16:25 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-114.cisco.com ([72.163.62.156]) by xbh-rcd-202.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sun, 7 Nov 2010 18:16:26 -0600
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
x-cr-hashedpuzzle: CXE5 F7kQ Gaxw KyWZ Nivp Om/v PBuh TMid TnzM Uj9b WG6T XLcT XYSS eO72 f8+D jIKJ; 3; ZAAuAHMAdAB1AHIAZQBrAEAAYQB0AHQALgBuAGUAdAA7AHQAaABlAHIAYgBzAHQAQABzAGkAbAB2AGUAcgBzAHAAcgBpAG4AZwBuAGUAdAAuAGMAbwBtADsAdgA2AG8AcABzAEAAaQBlAHQAZgAuAG8AcgBnAA==; Sosha1_v1; 7; {31BF1571-6A57-4E7B-A5B2-290A5CBBEC81}; cwBoAGUAbQBhAG4AdABAAGMAaQBzAGMAbwAuAGMAbwBtAA==; Mon, 08 Nov 2010 00:16:16 GMT; ZAByAGEAZgB0AC0AaABlAHIAYgBzAHQALQB2ADYAbwBwAHMALQBjAHAAZQBlAG4AaABhAG4AYwBlAG0AZQBuAHQAcwAtADAAMAA=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CB7EDA.2E567E14"
x-cr-puzzleid: {31BF1571-6A57-4E7B-A5B2-290A5CBBEC81}
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2010 18:16:16 -0600
Message-ID: <AF742F21C1FCEE4DAB7F4842ABDC511C031E78B1@XMB-RCD-114.cisco.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: draft-herbst-v6ops-cpeenhancements-00
Thread-Index: Act+2ikX8665RadzTKGeaROkobjgCQ==
From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com>
To: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, therbst@silverspringnet.com
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Nov 2010 00:16:26.0113 (UTC) FILETIME=[2EAB2710:01CB7EDA]
Cc: d.sturek@att.net
Subject: [v6ops] draft-herbst-v6ops-cpeenhancements-00
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: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 00:16:13 -0000

Tom,

 

Unless I see a picture for the routed topology of how the smart energy
meter gateway is deployed in the home, it's not clear what one should
look into for integrating such a device in an existing home.   Also,
your document says, 40% of the homes do not even have broadband access.
Thus in such a home with no broadband access, one may not have any other
router in the home to merge with the smart energy meter and hence none
of the features in your doc are required.   The requirements in this
document have to be more specific.   Anyway, whatever little I
understand from this document, I see that this new router gets a prefix
from the energy company adds multi-homing to the home with a broadband
connection.  The energy  meter device/router also gets added to the home
network.   Most of the other requirements in your document have been
discussed by the design team of the IPv6 CE Router Phase II document.
We'd be happy to work with you and flush out your requirements and see
what we can do to the Phase II or Phase III document.    Your document
has also not mentioned basic issues like multiple default gateways,
source-address selection, and DNS server selection (see
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-troan-multihoming-without-nat66-00)
that are issues to tackle first for a multi-homed network.   

 

Also, note in the Future Work section (section 3) of your document,
there is this bullet that already contradicts the IETF v6ops IPv6 CE
Router Phase one document in the RFC Editor queue
(http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router/).

 

[o  Define precoedures for gateways to generate a ULA if required]

 

The draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router says generation of the ULA is a
MUST, not "if required" as your bullet says above.  See requirement L-1
in section 4.3 of draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router.  Also, it is not
clear what you mean by "define procedures".   One task in the procedures
of ULA setup is automatic which is the ULA prefix generation algorithm
specified by RFC 4193.   So what other tasks in the procedures are we
talking about? 

 

Regards,

 

Hemant

 


Hemant Singh
Technical Leader.engineering
Product Development
shemant@cisco.com
Phone: +1 978 936 1622
Cisco Systems, Inc.
United States
Cisco.com - http://www.cisco.com


For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html