Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-bis

"Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com> Thu, 07 July 2011 20:19 UTC

Return-Path: <shemant@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E52C21F88D0 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 13:19:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YH1-qjK3Ztlb for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 13:19:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 982D821F88CE for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 13:19:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=shemant@cisco.com; l=2129; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1310069980; x=1311279580; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to:cc; bh=GLITiD7J5AT1tx6vMnWEitzt/iBR8hgmoFtYrUhh2sk=; b=ZEN7xypLH/8V2cmTigX5kofqBgzk2ofQ8a5tfZw5Txkh8hi8lbvbC5Zm JFIQydfbcX3dfKRKlnzIKQgqT7kXAWYXLl+Tf4LW1jTNIatEcDXbO2ic4 Gv92Wd6EIqOYh37VGDL9A7oVuz+q29zcFSUt/fXI6wTQlM90aLUOCVKy3 4=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgIBAN4TFk6tJV2c/2dsb2JhbABUmACPNnetXZ1yhjgEh0mQA4RLhw4
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,495,1304294400"; d="scan'208";a="804062"
Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Jul 2011 20:19:36 +0000
Received: from xbh-rcd-101.cisco.com (xbh-rcd-101.cisco.com [72.163.62.138]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p67KJadB029375; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 20:19:36 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-109.cisco.com ([72.163.62.151]) by xbh-rcd-101.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 7 Jul 2011 15:19:35 -0500
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
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 15:19:33 -0500
Message-ID: <5B6B2B64C9FE2A489045EEEADDAFF2C30229641C@XMB-RCD-109.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <E549EE58-A585-4603-85B9-C00FF295D480@gmail.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-bis
Thread-Index: Acw4BdAMrDcehW0bSUa88cFjEBLoQQAIDSAg
References: <E549EE58-A585-4603-85B9-C00FF295D480@gmail.com>
From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com>
To: John Gammons <jgammons@gmail.com>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Jul 2011 20:19:35.0783 (UTC) FILETIME=[309E5F70:01CC3CE3]
Cc: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-bis@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-bis
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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, 07 Jul 2011 20:19:41 -0000

-----Original Message-----
From: John Gammons [mailto:jgammons@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 11:44 AM
To: IPv6 Operations
Cc: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-bis@tools.ietf.org
Subject: re: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-bis

>First off, overall, this is a great draft and a much needed one at
that.  

Thanks.

>A few thoughts that might be considered overly complex, but I thought
I'd throw out there for potential talking points by the group.  

>CGN/LSN(NAT44) environment - 

>What if the WAN interface was provided an RFC1918 address (or
potentially draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-01/ARIN 2011-5
space), the CPE would accept this address as a management IP only, and
>fallback to bridge operation.  The thought here being, that rather than
downstream CPE operating in a NAT444 environment, they would then be
only NAT44.  This would obviously require that the provider >no longer
deliver only a single v4 address, but an unlimited number for any
subscriber routed through a CGN/LSN.  There are numerous other potential
implications which would need further discussion, but >the thought
being, all of those _could_ be more preferred over the NAT444
implications.  Essentially it would be "moving" the existing NAT44 to a
more advantageous v4 location where overloading can be >performed,
rather than adding an additional layer.  

All of the above text relates to IPv4-only behavior of the CPE router.
We are trying to only specify IPv6 related behavior in the bis document
and minimal IPv4 behavior when IPv4 impacts dual-stack operation. 

>No WAN IPv4 address -
>If, the CPE is delegated a prefix, but does not receive an IPv4 address
(public or private) on its WAN interface, and it does not receive a
DS-Lite configuration, then it may be beneficial to fallback >into a
NAT46 operation (draft-liu-behave-nat46).  

My recommendation is to then have the router fail for IPv4.  We are
actively trying to reduce the number of mandatory transition
technologies in the CE Rtr document in hope of facilitating
implementation.   

Hemant