Re: [v6ops] draft-wbeebee-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-bis - where to go from here

[Jack Bates <[e-mail]>]

On 2/1/2011 6:27 PM, Lee Howard wrote:
> If the problem statement is, "We need to define behavior for a device
> that supports an arbitrary number of instances in an arbitrary topology
> with an arbitrary number of connections without requiring management
> or configuration, and for less than $50USD," then we have scoped
> ourselves beyond the possible.
>
How have we scoped ourselves beyond the possible? You write the standard 
for the protocols. Vendors implement the protocols. Many vendors have 
shared code from chip manufacturers, so I don't really see an issue 
here. Provide the guidance for it to happen, they'll implement it. 
Nothing I've suggested will consume a lot of memory or flash (the major 
pricing points). More importantly, it's a matter of properly addressing 
the entire problem caused by shifting from IPv4 with NAPTv4 into IPv6 
with DHCPv6-PD.

> Issue multiple prefixes per customer, if you support multiple routers.  If
> you don't like the prefix length, change it.
>

The problem is, the desired goal is to look at assigning a single /48 
per site, and being able to support that site. My original viewpoint on 
the problem was that the ISP layer can actually handle some of this 
versatility. Most of it could be developed as a CPE protocol to handle 
sharing of addressing even via the WAN interface. However, a protocol of 
that scope will require even more work on the part of the CPE. I was 
trying to develop a method that:

1) better utilizes the existing protocols

2) changes things closer to implementation level than the actual 
protocols themselves

3) defines logic and methodology which currently isn't documented or 
standardized.

4) focuses on what works best in CPE PD handling first, treating support 
at the ISP level as a secondary option, but not required (ie, a CPE 
plugged into another CPE should just work and needs to be addressed, but 
how a CPE treats assignments should also be supported at the ISP level 
as an option).

We cannot leave chained DHCPv6-PD issues unresolved. There needs to be a 
standard for that. Applying similar logic up to the ISP level is also 
prudent, for those ISPs which do which to offer such services to their 
customers and to insure interoperability. As it stands, IPv6 cpe routers 
are likely to only be interoperable in a single configuration:

ISP -> CPE -> HOST

This is a step back from what we support in IPv4.


Jack