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)

"Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> Fri, 29 August 2008 23:59 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 C8A243A6AE7 for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 16:59:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.495
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 hElmT9PQKZ0W for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 16:59:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8C9A3A6836 for <v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 16:59:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>) id 1KZDjQ-0002QS-1u for v6ops-data@psg.com; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 23:50:20 +0000
Received: from [171.71.176.71] (helo=sj-iport-2.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <dwing@cisco.com>) id 1KZDjG-0002Pk-Md for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 23:50:18 +0000
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.32,295,1217808000"; d="scan'208";a="79446924"
Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Aug 2008 23:50:09 +0000
Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com (sj-core-3.cisco.com [171.68.223.137]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m7TNo9oL013210; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 16:50:09 -0700
Received: from dwingwxp01 ([10.32.240.194]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m7TNo98Z011529; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 23:50:09 GMT
From: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
To: 'james woodyatt' <jhw@apple.com>, 'IPv6 Operations' <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
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>
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: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 16:50:09 -0700
Message-ID: <0ea701c90a31$f8839ce0$c2f0200a@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
Thread-Index: AckJRl7SA9Fw6ZNCTZ+lNhQqG63QBAA6fXJg
In-Reply-To: <FD70B36F-FCD4-4BC4-9368-C0BEE1B162F0@apple.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=849; t=1220053809; x=1220917809; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=dwing@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Dan=20Wing=22=20<dwing@cisco.com> |Subject:=20RE=3A=20But=20are=20we=20talking=20IPv6=20only? =20That's=20how=20I=20read=20the=20draft.=20(Re=3A=20Some=20 suggestions=20for=20draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-03) |Sender:=20; bh=VYGjzI9e0RVDVrWfDlSz/ocq90IhfiWvDVIds+T1zUs=; b=HiSxVPB+fRPUZcH4wsTPIIzLc2aD09CUpElg3nG4FNWRPkXTZqS8dSPBHy ZTefT+cR+uM924XHIsD2nzZRdx2g2NWkxWyYTCk0HTHLGBurlrlC+EdvuqoZ OmFJi31zLz;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=dwing@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; );
Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <v6ops.ops.ietf.org>

> 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?

The other IPv6 transition mechanisms (IVI, NAT6, NAT64, and even
NAT-PT) all look and feel like your (A), from the perspective of 
the CPE.  Might want to point that out.

-d

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email