[c-nsp] DHCP_PD usage for PPPoE Access

[Frank Bulk]

I'm sorry, I don't follow how these excerpts from ipv6-cpe-router are
recommending using a /64 out of the delegated prefix on the WAN interface.

-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Miquel van
Smoorenburg
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2011 4:52 PM
To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] DHCP_PD usage for PPPoE Access

http://potaroo.net/ietf/all-ids/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-08.txt

    WAA-8:  If the IPv6 CE router does not acquire global IPv6
            address(es) from either SLAAC or DHCPv6, then it MUST create
            global IPv6 address(es) from its delegated prefix(es) and
            configure those on one of its internal virtual network
            interfaces.

    WAA-9:  As a router the IPv6 CE router MUST follow the weak host
            model [RFC1122].  When originating packets out an interface
            it will use a source address from another of its interfaces
            if the outgoing interface does not have an address of
            suitable scope.

In short, put prefix::Y/64 on a loopback interface, then make the WAN 
interface ipv6 unnumbered loopback X (or something that has the same 
effect - in fact it should behave like that by default)

Mike.

On 25-03-11 10:03 PM, Frank Bulk wrote:
> This approach was discouraged ipv6-ops listserv and one person pointed out
> that this violates an RFC:
> http://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/2011-January/004677.html
>
> Frank
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
> [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Victor Lyapunov
> Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 10:30 AM
> To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Subject: [c-nsp] DHCP_PD usage for PPPoE Access
>
> Hello
>
> I have been testing some scenarios for IPv6 over broadband
> connections. The setup is a the most common one, the CPE gets
>
> -One ::/128 WAN ipv6 address using autonegotiaton.
> -A signle ::/56 LAN subnet for the user networks, through DHCP-PD
> (further subneted into /64 subnets for the various VLANs in the CPE)
>
> For this setup the NAS server is configured with a local ipv6 pool for
> WAN address assignment (autonegotiation)
>
>    ipv6 local pool PPPOE 2001:100::/64 128 shared
>
> And a second pool used by the DHCP_PD
>
>   ipv6 local pool LAN 2001:200::/48 56
>
> In this way I have to maintain two different pools (one for CPEs WAN
> and one LAN addressing).
> A possible alternative that is discussed, is having the NAS allocate
> just the DHCP_PD ::/56 prefix to the CPE (as far as global addresses
> are concerned). And then configure the CPE to use the first of the
> resulting 256 ::/64 subnets for the WAN and the rest for the LANs.
>
> What is your experience, is the second alternative worth pursuing? Is
> there a common practice?
>
> Thanx for the input
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/