Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments

From: "Stark, Barbara" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:44:16 -0400

It's not clear to me why manual configuration is specified as *the* way to configure these routes (again, I see RA (RFC 4191) from the access network to the CPE Rtr WAN interface as a way to configure the routes). I propose that if a CPE Rtr gets such routes from the WAN that it automatically put those same route prefixes in its LAN RAs. In which case it would not be off by default, but on by default (it would automatically send specific route info if it has specific route info to send). 
Barbara

----- Original Message -----
From: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
To: james woodyatt <[email-masked]>; IPv6 Operations <[email-masked]>
Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant) <[email-masked]>
Sent: Fri Mar 27 15:40:09 2009
Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments

The new text for MSR's is as follows:

"8.7 Multi-homed Host Support (MEDIUM)
The CPE Router MAY support RFC4191 on its LAN interfaces.  Small
consumer embedded multi-homed hosts in the home may not have
configurable routing tables.  The CPE Router can communicate More
Specific Routes (MSRs) to these hosts to allow them to choose a
preferred router to send traffic to for traffic destined to specific
prefixes configured through manual configuration.  Advertisement of MSRs
through RAs is turned off by default."

- Wes

-----Original Message-----
From: james woodyatt [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 7:17 PM
To: IPv6 Operations
Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant); Wes Beebee (wbeebee)
Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments

On Mar 25, 2009, at 16:06, james woodyatt wrote:
>
> Please let me clarify my remarks and narrow my request somewhat, now 
> that I've had a chance to review more of the CPE Router draft.  I am 
> only interested in such RFC 4191 messages when a valid PIO has been 
> received on the WAN link with L=1.  No other cases are interesting.

I take it back.  It's interesting in the other cases as well.  Two CPE
routers attached to the same link will exchange their prefixes with MSR
advertisements regardless of whether the RAs from the service provider
have PIO options in them.  As they should.

--
james woodyatt <[email-masked]>
member of technical staff, communications engineering

*****

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. GA622

---

From: "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:55:30 -0400

In the Abstract, RFC 4191 says explicitly:
 
"The preference values and specific routes advertised to hosts require
administrative configuration; they are not automatically derived from
routing tables."
 
Further, throughout RFC 4191, they give examples that illustrate why
they make this statement.  The problems (briefly) are stability of
routes, more than 17 routes getting advertised (too many routes), etc. 
 
- Wes

________________________________

From: Stark, Barbara [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 4:44 PM
To: Wes Beebee (wbeebee); [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments

It's not clear to me why manual configuration is specified as *the* way
to configure these routes (again, I see RA (RFC 4191) from the access
network to the CPE Rtr WAN interface as a way to configure the routes).
I propose that if a CPE Rtr gets such routes from the WAN that it
automatically put those same route prefixes in its LAN RAs. In which
case it would not be off by default, but on by default (it would
automatically send specific route info if it has specific route info to
send).
Barbara

----- Original Message -----
From: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
To: james woodyatt <[email-masked]>; IPv6 Operations <[email-masked]>
Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant) <[email-masked]>
Sent: Fri Mar 27 15:40:09 2009
Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments

- Wes

-----Original Message-----
From: james woodyatt [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 7:17 PM
To: IPv6 Operations
Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant); Wes Beebee (wbeebee)
Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments

*****

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or
privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other
use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by
persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If
you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the
material from all computers. GA622

---

From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:58:37 -0400

Barbara,

You are also asking for the impossible.   As a cable or DSL SP, you don’t know what the IPv6 prefix my IPhone from AT&T is using for the cellular network?  So how can any MSR be devised and propagated from the SP router serving the broadband modem in the home to send an MSR for a prefix not known to them?  

Our new text is fine.

Hemant

----- Original Message -----
From: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
To: james woodyatt <[email-masked]>; IPv6 Operations <[email-masked]>
Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant) <[email-masked]>
Sent: Fri Mar 27 15:40:09 2009
Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments

- Wes

-----Original Message-----
From: james woodyatt [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 7:17 PM
To: IPv6 Operations
Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant); Wes Beebee (wbeebee)
Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments

*****

---

From: "Stark, Barbara" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 17:30:34 -0400

You don’t think that AT&T the DSL SP will know what AT&T wireless might be doing with a device that’s connected to AT&T the application service provider? J Oh ye of little faith. Have you never seen the movie “The President’s Analyst”?

But no, in the case you describe, the cellular network that provides this iPhone with 3G connectivity would need to send route info in its RA, specifying the prefixes of its walled garden, to the iPhone. If the DSL connection is just a plain vanilla connection, there would be no route info coming at the iPhone from its Wi-Fi interface. The DSL provider doesn’t need to know about the 3G connection – only the iPhone knows.

Barbara

From: Hemant Singh (shemant) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 4:59 PM
To: Stark, Barbara; Wes Beebee (wbeebee); [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments

Barbara,

Our new text is fine.

Hemant

----- Original Message -----
From: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
To: james woodyatt <[email-masked]>; IPv6 Operations <[email-masked]>
Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant) <[email-masked]>
Sent: Fri Mar 27 15:40:09 2009
Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments

- Wes

-----Original Message-----
From: james woodyatt [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 7:17 PM
To: IPv6 Operations
Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant); Wes Beebee (wbeebee)
Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments

*****

*****

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. GA623

---

From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 18:48:36 -0400

Barbara, 

Please see in line below.

From: Stark, Barbara [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 5:31 PM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant); Wes Beebee (wbeebee); [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments

>You don’t think that AT&T the DSL SP will know what AT&T wireless might be doing with a device that’s connected to AT&T the application service provider? J Oh ye of little faith.   Have you never se…

Movie recommendations are very much appreciated, especially on a Friday J and hilarious ones at that, in any context – I have not seen this movie.   It would be interesting to see AT&T’s network for DSL and wireless data services as to how such large subscriber sets are merged for routed domains and also how routing prefixes are propagated  between their DSL and cellular data links.   I also said, cable or DSL.  If the home has cable broadband, the Comcast cable doesn’t know about AT&T wireless prefixes.

>But no, in the case you describe, the cellular network that provides this iPhone with 3G connectivity would need to send route info in its RA, specifying the prefixes of its walled garden, to the iPhone. If the DSL connection is just a plain vanilla connection, there would >be no route info coming at the iPhone from its Wi-Fi interface. The DSL provider doesn’t need to know about the 3G connection – only the iPhone knows.

Hmm,  in cable modem IPv4 access in my home, my iTouch acquires an IPv4 address from the wireless router in my home behind the cable modem.  I surf the Internet with the iTouch just fine.   So when this home network moves to IPv6 in future, the wireless segment of my home router has got to send an RA for any IPv6 wireless device in the home to acquire an IPv6 address including the iTouch.    

Have a good weekend to all.

Hemant

---

From: "Stark, Barbara" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 19:14:57 -0400

This is non-normative language, in the abstract of RFC 4191. Normative
references to RFC 4191 purely apply to the protocol, and do not apply to
non-normative statements in that RFC about how one might or might not
configure the elements of that protocol. The goal of not having too many
routes advertised is worthy, and does need to be given serious
consideration in the design of any algorithm that would derive the
routes in an automated manner.

Barbara

From: Wes Beebee (wbeebee) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 4:56 PM
To: Stark, Barbara; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments

- Wes

----- Original Message -----
From: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
To: james woodyatt <[email-masked]>; IPv6 Operations <[email-masked]>
Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant) <[email-masked]>
Sent: Fri Mar 27 15:40:09 2009
Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments

- Wes

-----Original Message-----
From: james woodyatt [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 7:17 PM
To: IPv6 Operations
Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant); Wes Beebee (wbeebee)
Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments

*****

*****

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. GA621

---

From: "Alan Kavanagh" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 21:18:18 -0400

Hmm, im a little bit confused here or just missing some of this
discussion, but what "routes" are you considering being advertised by
the BNG/IP_Edge node and what routes would be then advertised from the
WAN to the Home LAN network?
 
Alan K

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Stark, Barbara
Sent: March 27, 2009 4:44 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments

----- Original Message -----
From: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
To: james woodyatt <[email-masked]>; IPv6 Operations <[email-masked]>
Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant) <[email-masked]>
Sent: Fri Mar 27 15:40:09 2009
Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments

- Wes

-----Original Message-----
From: james woodyatt [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 7:17 PM
To: IPv6 Operations
Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant); Wes Beebee (wbeebee)
Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments

*****

---

From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 11:08:46 -0400

Barbara,

references to RFC 4191 purely apply to the protocol, and do not apply to
non-normative statements in that RFC about how one might or might not
configure the elements of that protocol. The goal >of not having too
many routes advertised is worthy, and does need to be given serious
consideration in the design of any algorithm that would derive the
routes in an automated manner.

Sure, we can grant you that the Abstract is non-normative language .
However, there is still Normative language in section 4 for RFC 4191 I
have shown below.

[The preference values (both Default Router Preferences and Route

 Preferences) SHOULD NOT be routing metrics or automatically derived

 from metrics: the preference values SHOULD be configured.]

 A minor point first.  When did any admin automate configuration of RA
on a router?  Since an RA is manually configured on a router it makes
sense to manually configure any extensions to the RA like the MSR.
Anyhow, as I said before, the SP doesn't even have all the routing and
prefix information available for what's what multi-homed devices will be
deployed in the home, the MSR cannot even be derived by the SP, let
alone the SP automating derivation and sending of the MSR.

Hemant

---

From: "Stark, Barbara" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 15:55:38 -0400

Consider a scenario where a home has 2 routers, each connected to a
different access network (maybe one is cable and the other DSL). Each
SP, in addition to providing Internet access, also provides access to a
walled garden of special services accessible only by their subscribers.
This walled garden uses an address space not accessible from the
Internet. This walled garden might require the CPE router to set up a
separate WAN connection, or it might not.

Wouldn't the access networks , in this case, need to tell the CPE
routers connected to them that this address space is accessible off this
network? And wouldn't the CPE Routers need to tell the hosts in the LAN
which of these walled garden address spaces gets routed through each of
them, so hosts know where to send traffic bound for a server off one or
the other of these private networks?

I've seen these things rather often in IPv4, where the CPE Router is
statically configured (by the SP) to know what to do. But if the address
space needs to change, updating the configuration is clumsy. It seems
that the tools available to us with IPv6 could allow us to do better.

Barbara

From: Alan Kavanagh [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2009 9:18 PM
To: Stark, Barbara; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments

Alan K

----- Original Message -----
From: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
To: james woodyatt <[email-masked]>; IPv6 Operations <[email-masked]>
Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant) <[email-masked]>
Sent: Fri Mar 27 15:40:09 2009
Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments

- Wes

-----Original Message-----
From: james woodyatt [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 7:17 PM
To: IPv6 Operations
Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant); Wes Beebee (wbeebee)
Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments

*****

*****

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. GA625

---

From: "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:04:34 -0400

Manual configuration that may be required to be updated by the Service
Provider may be exposed through SNMP in the CPE Router.
 
Therefore, we could provide a way to insert routes into the MSR table
through SNMP queries.
 
However, other routes may need to be configured by the end-user, so the
MSR table may need to be exposed to the end user as well.
 
- Wes

From: Stark, Barbara [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 3:56 PM
To: Alan Kavanagh; Wes Beebee (wbeebee); [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments

Barbara

Alan K

----- Original Message -----
From: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
To: james woodyatt <[email-masked]>; IPv6 Operations <[email-masked]>
Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant) <[email-masked]>
Sent: Fri Mar 27 15:40:09 2009
Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments

- Wes

-----Original Message-----
From: james woodyatt [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 7:17 PM
To: IPv6 Operations
Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant); Wes Beebee (wbeebee)
Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments

*****

*****

material from all computers. GA625

---

From: "Stark, Barbara" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 17:13:45 -0400

SPs always have the option of using remote device configuration
protocols (e.g. SNMP, TR-069) to configure CPE routers that they supply.
I do not, realistically, expect retail CPE routers to support any of
these options. For TR-069, BBF can certainly be expected to define
mechanisms to manage the routing table. I assume that your SNMP
suggestions were intended for the cable company managed routers, and
other (e.g. enterprise) SNMP-managed routers.

The vast majority of end users will not be able / willing to configure
routing tables. This isn't that different from firewall configuration,
which terrified the majority of end users, and were the cause for a
large percentage of calls to service provider help desks. CPE Routers
that succeed in the multi-homed environment, will be the ones that
implement automated mechanisms that work. 

I've noticed from a number of comments that there seems to be a certain
disparity between requirements for cable CPE routers, other service
provider CPE routers that may have PHY layer WAN modems in them
(non-Ethernet WAN), and the retail CPE routers that have an Ethernet WAN
and can make no assumption about the nature of the WAN or the service
provider supplying that WAN connection. I think that these retail
devices are probably the ones that could most benefit from an IETF
informational document, and wonder if we shouldn't focus more on
recommendations specifically for them. It sounds like the cable industry
already has its eRouter document and doesn't really need this. BBF is
writing its document. But the retail guys have no other home.

>From my perspective, it would be very useful to be able to have some
predictable understanding of the capabilities that a retail CPE router
can reasonably be expected to have. 

Barbara

From: Wes Beebee (wbeebee) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 4:05 PM
To: Stark, Barbara; Alan Kavanagh; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments

- Wes

Barbara

Alan K

----- Original Message -----
From: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
To: james woodyatt <[email-masked]>; IPv6 Operations <[email-masked]>
Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant) <[email-masked]>
Sent: Fri Mar 27 15:40:09 2009
Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments

- Wes

-----Original Message-----
From: james woodyatt [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 7:17 PM
To: IPv6 Operations
Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant); Wes Beebee (wbeebee)
Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments

*****

*****

---

From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 17:36:18 -0400

Barabra,

Could you please go to the archives of the v6ops mailer so that you
would understand that even after the cable folks did a eRouter
specification, we noticed some glaring problems with that specification
and decided to fix them in an IETF draft.  So let's not get into 

"It sounds like the cable industry already has its eRouter document and
doesn't really need this".  This is a closed book archives in v6ops.
You can see all the problems we listed in the eRouter in emails to
v6ops.

Then, of course, we wanted to specify a standalone home router which is
what the document has also focused on.   Also, since now the CPE Rtr
document is completed for Cable and also getting there as a standalone
device for core router, I don't understand the disparity you are talking
about.  Please let us know specifically what other disparity has caused
an incomplete embedded CPE Rtr or a standalone router in the IETF v6ops
version of the draft.   Also, sorry Wes didn't mean SNMP when he said
SNMP - he was still talking in generic terms that use whatever is one's
favorite management tool for one's deployment.

Lastly, we just don't see a way out for this MSR issue to go beyond
manual.  May I suggest, before we spend any more time on MSR, can we get
all the DSL requirements and then we can focus better on the whole
requirements set and suggest a holistic guidance. 

Hemant

From: Stark, Barbara [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 5:14 PM
To: Wes Beebee (wbeebee); Alan Kavanagh; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments