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)

[Rémi Després <[e-mail]>]

Templin, Fred L   (m/j/a) 8/28/08 10:05 PM:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: james woodyatt [mailto:[e-mail]] 

>> 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?

Not that I see, understanding that 6rd (deployed by Free of the Iliad 
Group, and described in draft-despres-6rd-00) is in the list of B.

> 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).

- ISATAP is a tool that assigns full /128 addresses to IPv6 hosts of 
IPv4-only sites.
- If my understanding of the subject is right, it is therefore not a 
tool to assign an IPv6 prefix to a router CPE behind which several hosts 
have teir individual IPv6 addresses. (A prefix shorter than /128 would 
be necesssary, typically /48 to /64).


Regards,

RD