IETF Logo Mail Archive

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> Thu, 28 August 2008 21:28 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 B0D043A6901 for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:28:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.586
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.586 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.091, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
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 r8SAj-PnrHt2 for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:28:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBFAD28C14F for <v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:28:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>) id 1KYouj-000PWW-9N for v6ops-data@psg.com; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 21:20:21 +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 1KYouf-000PW2-Pq for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 21:20:19 +0000
Received: from stl-av-01.boeing.com (stl-av-01.boeing.com [192.76.190.6]) by blv-smtpout-01.ns.cs.boeing.com (8.14.0/8.14.0/8.14.0/SMTPOUT) with ESMTP id m7SLK963007735 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:20:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stl-av-01.boeing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by stl-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.0/8.14.0/DOWNSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id m7SLK8AM007281; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 16:20:08 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from XCH-NWBH-11.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch-nwbh-11.nw.nos.boeing.com [130.247.55.84]) by stl-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.0/8.14.0/UPSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id m7SLK5QK007191; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 16:20:08 -0500 (CDT)
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); Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:20:02 -0700
x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
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: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:20:00 -0700
Message-ID: <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A104E936B6@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com>
In-Reply-To: <2A58BE0C-2510-4C8C-8F34-A4FDAE440A1C@apple.com>
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: AckJUlCjHnT6zbNfR5aIDp5qBKdi2wAASiqg
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> <2 A58BE0C-2510-4C8C-8F34-A4FDAE440A1C@apple.com>
From: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Aug 2008 21:20:02.0447 (UTC) FILETIME=[D56E21F0:01C90953]
Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <v6ops.ops.ietf.org>

 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: james woodyatt [mailto:jhw@apple.com] 
>Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 1:50 PM
>To: 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)
>
>On Aug 28, 2008, at 13:05, Templin, Fred L wrote:
>> [I wrote:]
>>>
>>> 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?
>>
>> 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).
>
>
>Please correct me if I'm wrong... that's just B) where the tunnel is  
>ISATAP.  Right?

The distinction being drawn between B) and this (call it C),
I guess) is that C) entails a private IPv4 address on the
CPE provider-facing interace; not a public one.

Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com 

>
>--
>james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>
>member of technical staff, communications engineering
>
>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email