Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-baker-v6ops-cpe-autoconfigure-00.txt

["Mukom Akong T." <[e-mail]>]

On 18 June 2017 at 01:21, Fred Baker <[e-mail]> wrote:

> IPv6 was an "advanced configuration", and the difference between
> "auto-configure" and "auto-detect" was a little lost on me.
>


Agree and sometimes the options offered in the config screens as just
bizare (e.g. Native and 6to4 as IPv6 connection types)



>
> So I have a question. Do we need to spell this out for CPE vendors? I have
> spliced together a draft on the topic. I'd welcome comments that might
> improve it, especially if I have something egregiously wrong. Second, I'm
> curious whether the working group thinks we need this.
>
> Your thoughts?
>

>From the document,

[snip]

It may offer a DNS service using a provider such as OpenDNS, Google

   Public DNS, Amazon Route 53, or some other such service, or relay the

   address of an ISP-provided DNS server.

[/snip]


In the context of a home, I’d think DNS service should be a MUST and here’s
why

   - the typical home user is not sophisticated enough to configure
   anything once the provider has installed it
   - they currently don’t have to configure anything in IPv4
   - making them have to configure resolvers for IPv6 puts IPv6 on a
   different, harder path than IPv4 and they wouldn’t even know where to start
   - This is particularly important in IPv6 only where there wouldn’t even
   be an IPv4 DNS resolver to use





[snip]

Similarly, the stated goal requires that upstream, the CPE must

   presume that it will be required to solicit and observe a Router

   Advertisement [RFC4861], and


   o  learn an upstream DHCPv6 server address,

   o  either autoconfigure [RFC4862] its upstream address or derive one

      using DHCPv6 [RFC3315],

   o  potentially learn an DNS server address from an RDNSS [RFC4339] or

      from DHCPv6,

   o  and allocate IPv6 /64 prefixes for each of its interior subnets

      using the IPv6 Prefix Options for DHCP [RFC3633].


   Given that, it is in a position to offer IPv6 services in the

   residential/SOHO network depending on the upstream IPv6 capabilities.


[/snip]


What if we replace the first two bullet points with

   - configure its WAN interface with one or more GUA addresses using
   whatever mechanism it negotiates with the ISP’s 'serving' device/


In EXPECTED behavior, I’d favour a MUST for IA_PD because it presents the
only option for provisioning devices in the network if NAT is not an option

Lastly, how is the CPE to know what to request ask “Length for this prefix
in bits" with its IA-PD request?




-- 

Mukom Akong T.

LinkedIn:Mukom <https://www.linkedin.com/in/mukom>  |  twitter:
@perfexcellent


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“When you work, you are the FLUTE through whose lungs the whispering of the
hours turns to MUSIC" - Kahlil Gibran
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------