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: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Victor Lyapunov
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 10:30 AM
To: [email protected]
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 [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
