[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 router option
Like I said earlier we need to understand who or what type of provider is
making this request. I am not aware of cable providers making this request,
I have not.
John
=========================================
John Jason Brzozowski
Comcast Corporation
e) mailto:john_brzozowski at cable.comcast.com
m) 609-377-6594
=========================================
> From: <Olaf.Bonness at telekom.de>
> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 19:59:54 -0400
> To: Hemant Singh <shemant at cisco.com>, Bernie Volz <volz at cisco.com>, Thomas
> Narten <narten at us.ibm.com>
> Cc: dhc WG <dhcwg at ietf.org>, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon at nominum.com>, Ralph Droms
> <rdroms at cisco.com>
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 router option
>
> INHO it's not a cable operator kind of questions. AFAIK also DSL providers are
> asking for such kind of solution. And it may be that the SP does not safe
> money with it's concrete network implementation but he can definitely re-use
> the biggest part of its provisioning and business supporting systems.
>
> Olaf
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Hemant Singh (shemant) [mailto:shemant at cisco.com]
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 24. März 2009 00:50
> An: Bonneß, Olaf; Bernie Volz (volz); narten at us.ibm.com
> Cc: dhcwg at ietf.org; ted.lemon at nominum.com; Ralph Droms (rdroms)
> Betreff: RE: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 router option
>
> All I am asking for is justification from cable operators because it seems one
> of them has fostered this idea. It's not clear yet that the cable SP is
> saving money nor clear that all cable SPs would agree to making changes to
> cable IPv6 standards to accommodate such new work.
>
> Hemant
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Olaf.Bonness at telekom.de [mailto:Olaf.Bonness at telekom.de]
> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 7:38 PM
> To: Hemant Singh (shemant); Bernie Volz (volz); narten at us.ibm.com
> Cc: dhcwg at ietf.org; ted.lemon at nominum.com; Ralph Droms (rdroms)
> Subject: AW: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 router option
>
> Hi Hemant,
>
> it's not necessary to dive into the tons of emails that have been written
> about this in between.
> You've seen the presentation by Thomas and he clearly stated that some ISPs
> want to operate their networks in that way in order to safe the money they
> have already invested in their networks and provisioning systems.
>
> I can not say that I like this approach very much from an architectural point
> of view, but from an ISP perspective its the easiest and cheapest way to
> implement IPv6 without major re-structuring of products / processes and major
> costs.
>
> So give the ISP the choice to chose which approach it implements and what it
> has to pay for offering IPv6 to its customers.
>
> Only my 2 cent
> Olaf (working for an ISP)
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: dhcwg-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces at ietf.org] Im Auftrag von
> Hemant Singh (shemant)
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 24. März 2009 00:18
> An: Bernie Volz (volz); Thomas Narten
> Cc: dhcwg at ietf.org; Ted Lemon; Ralph Droms (rdroms)
> Betreff: Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 router option
>
> Ralph,
>
> Besides Alain Durand who has been asking for this potentially broken
> idea to add a router option in DHCPv6, who else is a SP who asked for
> this work? Alain also does not represent other cable vendors like
> Time-Warner, or Cablevision etc. For that matter, Alain himself says "I
> don't even represent Comcast", so who else from Comcast can speak up and
> say this work is needed?
>
> Let me also bring folks up to speed on Cable IPv6 standards from the
> CableLabs. We finished our Cable IPv6 standards more than three years
> back and consumer devices like cable modems already follow the RA model
> to get default rtr info and use DHCPv6 as well for ipv6 address
> acquisition and other parameters like DNS etc. A consumer device like a
> cable modem has a huge inertia to changing any feature. Likewise a
> CMTS router that terminates the cable modems, being a Service Provide
> box, has its own inertia to changing core features. I spent two years
> of my life between 2005=2007 nursing cable modem vendors to fix very
> simple and core IPv6 bugs in their chips and I do consider this draft to
> be rocking that boat. The Provisioning system also changes. Then I and
> Wes spent time finding show stopper bugs in hosts behind cable modems
> and discovered that most operating systems were broken in some core data
> forwarding behavior for IPv6 for a specific RA. I do not like any IPv6
> boat rocked even an iota unless there is compelling justification.
>
> So let's not go backward. Alain and Ralph, please explain what is the
> problem in the cable broadband network that this draft is needed?
> Please be super specific as to what the problem is. Sorry, if the good
> reasons have been given to the mailer - I have not caught up to mails on
> this thread yet. One year back when we discussed this issue with Alain,
> I didn't hear any compelling reason. What has changed since then?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Hemant
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg