> From: Fred Baker <f...@cisco.com> > Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 01:53:30 -0400 > To: "Stark, Barbara" <bs7...@att.com> > Cc: <draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-rou...@tools.ietf.org>, > <draft-donley-ipv6-cpe-rtr-use-cases-and-r...@tools.ietf.org>, IETF IPv6 > Mailing List <ipv6@ietf.org> > Subject: Re: Comments on IPv6 Prefix Subdelegation > > > > On Jul 29, 2009, at 11:03 PM, Stark, Barbara wrote: >> Why does it need to be a dynamic routing protocol? Why not a simple >> configuration protocol, like with RFC 4191 or a DHCPv6 option as >> suggested in >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dec-dhcpv6-route-option-01? > >> Why do the peered routers (such as CPE RTR 1 and 2, in Fig 3) need to >> know which routes other routers claim to serve? > > Um, what does a router do? Look at the example in the text and ask > yourself if you want an average user (my canonical "average user" > being my daughter, who wanted me to come to her house to install a > camera on her computer so she could use it on Skype - "did you try > plugging it in?") manually installing routes in each of the four > routers when they could in fact learn them from each other directly? [jjmb] Agree here the notion of the user having to configure the network manually is not going to fly. > >> There shouldn't be misdirected traffic, if the routes are known to >> downstream devices. > > Not so. First, communications are not limited to accesses to systems > outside the SOHO - music, for example, is often an access to a server > in the home. Second, the fact that a datagram was delivered to a > device in the home via one CPE is no guarantee that its response will > use the same CPE. > >> Or >> is it the home/office RTRs (Fig 3) who need to know which prefixes >> have >> been assigned to each other, advertising on their WAN interfaces? It >> seems like if the home/office RTRs don't know about each other, it >> doesn't really hurt efficiency that much; it'll still work. They'll >> send >> the messages up to the next hop (CPE RTR) serving that prefix, and >> then >> it'll get routed down to the right home/office RTR. >> >> If peered CPE RTRs do need to know each others' routes, why can't they >> get it through an RFC 4191 or DHCPv6 method (this would be on the LAN >> interface). I realize that there are those who say it's wrong for them >> to solicit (RS or DHCPv6) on their LAN interfaces -- but why is it >> wrong? > > ... This comes back to my question about manual configuration. If I > can make it work easily, what is the argument for not doing so? [jjmb] there should not be an argument, alleviating manual configuration where possible is the right thing. This would not preclude more advanced users from manually configuring whatever they like. > >> And don't these routes need to get propagated down to the hosts, >> because >> hosts may individually have multiple interfaces (e.g., smartphone with >> Wi-Fi and 3G)? > > That gets into a much larger discussion. Willing to go there, but > that's beyond this draft. > >> Barbara >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf >> Of >>> Fred Baker >>> Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 6:05 AM >>> To: Azinger, Marla >>> Cc: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-rou...@tools.ietf.org; >> draft-donley-ipv6- >>> cpe-rtr-use-cases-and-r...@tools.ietf.org; IETF IPv6 Mailing List >>> Subject: Re: Comments on IPv6 Prefix Subdelegation >>> >>> >>> On Jul 29, 2009, at 10:35 AM, Azinger, Marla wrote: >>> >>>> Routing in such an environment calls for a routing protocol. Each >>>> CPE must run either RIPv6 [RFC2080], IS-IS [RFC5308], or OSPF >>>> [RFC5340] on a default route and to the homes interal upstream a >>>> static default route. The issues raised in [RFC3704] also apply, >>>> meaning that the two CPE routers may each need to observe the source >>>> addresses in datagrams they handle to divert them to the other CPE >>>> to handle upstream >>> >>> I'll figure something out there. This makes it sound like only the >>> CPE >>> routers have to run a routing protocol; in fact, all of the routers >>> in >>> the home have to run a routing protocol. But yes, something like >>> that. >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >>> ipv6@ietf.org >>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > --------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
