Am 25.03.14 20:13, schrieb Florian Lohoff:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 01:29:39PM -0400, Philip Matthews wrote:Folks: Until recently, I was under the impression that most people were using numbered v6 links to residential subscribers, allocating the WAN address using DHCPv6. However, recently two people have told me about a number of providers that are doing unnumbered instead.
We are doing PPPoE with SLAAC and DHCP-PD for a /56 - simple - straightforward and works like a charm with our AVM CPE installbase. Shipping IPv6 default enabled CPEs for 2 years.
We are doing the same.But it's questionable to provide a /64 on the PPP link. So the same model works quite well with link-local addresses.
The use of a numbered link has the benefit that in case of TR69, you can use the WAN address for CPE management wich can be easily filtered.
Otherwise you need a loopback address out of the customer address space.So for unmanaged devices I would prefer unnumbered links, for managed devices the numbered one.
Btw. for PPPoE I don't see any benefit in using DHCPv6-IA instead of SLAAC.
PPPoE solves all the v6 L2 security problems of legacy L2 networks and also solves the connectivity issues from your second paragraph. PPP comes with keepalives. Combined with multiple BRASes the fallback with a delayed PADO you are basically done with a failover scenario.
+1 Holger
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
