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

[Jack Bates <[e-mail]>]

On 2/1/2011 9:03 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
> the upstream would normally consider that it could route the entire
> prefix to each of the N interfaces according to whatever rules it
> chose, and the downstream could allocate /64s within the prefix as it
> chose.  In other words, it would operate the same way that it would
> operate if the downstream had PI space with the exception that the
> upstream wouldn't advertise the more specific route - it would merely
> announce its own much-shorter prefix.

My problem with this, is that there's no guarantee that the N interfaces 
share any routing information between them. It's a generic home network.

What always gets me is that implementations I've seen treat DHCPv6-PD as 
individual prefixes without a concept of reserving space and issuing 
needed space out of it.

I have no problem routing a /48 to a customer CPE. The problem isn't the 
educated. The problem is the ability to configure a SP edge to allow any 
number of configurations in a home network and just allow it to work.

Yes, there's alternatives, such as CPE standards perhaps recognizing 
each other even on the wan and splitting address space. The whole 
mechanism could be done in a CPE, but whatever method is chose, it 
should be pushed forward and mandated as support for zeroconf. We are 
quickly on the way to returning to the original days of when buying a 
CPE required a lot of manual configuration, when IPv6 has the capability 
of doing so much more.


Jack