Residential subscribers: numbered or unnumbered?

[Holger Zuleger]

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4140 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <https://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/attachments/20140325/29b565c2/attachment.p7s>