RE: Fwd: Broadband Forum liaison to IETF on IPv6 security

2009-11-07 Thread Dunn, Jeffrey H.
Wes, That is an interesting idea. One question occurs to me that you can probably answer. What happens if a host behind the CPE router does SLAAC, configures a UGA? Since it has already done DAD, the host assumes it has an unused address. When the host finally tries to use the UGA to access the

RE: Fwd: Broadband Forum liaison to IETF on IPv6 security

2009-11-07 Thread Dunn, Jeffrey H.
Hemant, Fair enough. I suppose that there are enough /55's or /56's that every household can have one; however, it does make "right sizing" the initial allocation to the ISP very important. We would not want to be allocating non-contiguous /28's on a regular basis :-) Best Regards,   Jeffrey

RE: Fwd: Broadband Forum liaison to IETF on IPv6 security

2009-11-07 Thread Hemant Singh (shemant)
Jeffrey, The answer to your question is a yes. Alternatively, the ISP may just dole out a delegated prefix shorter than a /64 and the CPE Rtr has to live with it but the ISP may use something like a /55 that gives sufficient number of links in the home LAN. I will reply to any more discussion

RE: Fwd: Broadband Forum liaison to IETF on IPv6 security

2009-11-07 Thread Dunn, Jeffrey H.
OK. Then the CPE router has a unique /64 for all of its broadcast domains? Does that mean that the customer needs to tell the ISP how many /64 prefixes they need? Best Regards,   Jeffrey Dunn Info Systems Eng., Lead MITRE Corporation. (301) 448-6965 (mobile) -Original Message- From

RE: Fwd: Broadband Forum liaison to IETF on IPv6 security

2009-11-07 Thread Hemant Singh (shemant)
This is the same thought I emailed about that the access concentrator in the NBMA link performing ND Proxy - Wes and I are saying the same thing - he put is very nicely in concise form. The access concentrator is also the first hop IPv6 router to the broadband enabled home and note that a route

RE: [savi] Broadband Forum liaison to IETF on IPv6 security

2009-11-07 Thread Hemant Singh (shemant)
I agree with Thomas. The reason I and Wes could reply with some ideas is because we are familiar with the cable deployment and contributed text for ND Proxy behavior in cable standards. A start for diagram may be RFC4779 that DSL folks should look at and tell us what they talking about. If a DSL