Francois,
In 1999 you asked my predecessor's predecessor:
I wonder if we should not have a new working group within the IETF that
would issue informational RFC's on the topics of equal access
using Internet Protocol technologies.
Well, I'm quite sure the answer is no. That is a business model, policy and
governance question, and these are not areas within the IETF's mission.
Discussion of specific vendor's products is also outside our scope, except
when they directly illustrate technical discussions.
It's clear that producing technical standards that are fair and open is
in the IETF's mission, and that is where we should focus. If you have
technical proposals that tackle this, they are most welcome, in Paris,
Vancouver, or on-line.
You might, however, be interested by RFC 4084.
Regards
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter
IETF Chair
Francois Menard wrote:
Folks,
With the positive result in Lafayette a few hours ago, and the increased
reliance on non-standard Multi-VRF in CMTS for cable modem open access
in Canada (which is finally being turned on as we speak), I think it is
finally time to get my July 17, 1999 proposal out of the drawer (making
it its 6th anniversary today by pure coincidence... proving again that
things never change... or at least take forever to change...).
What process should I follow to make this happen from a distance if I
cannot manage to travel onsite at an IETF meeting? (Vancouver is as far
from here as Paris!, but I am tempted to go.)
Can anyone comment about whether I should be able to expect getting an
MPLS LSP straight out of a Cisco CMTS into my own provider edge router
as an ISP rather than rely on this being done internally by the cable
carrier to a 7206 acting as the PE, but then running policy routing on
the source IP address to select the right interface towards the ISP and
then require to run the DHCP server on behalf of the ISP?
Does anybody know whether this:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/routers/ps259/prod_bulletin09186a00800921d7.html
is known to be standardized and interoperable at the MPLS level with
other provider hardware?
I know some people my think that I should ask these questions to Cisco
directly, but really, this is not the case... In Canada the CMTS
hardware that cable carriers use might be cisco, but ISPs are free to
select the PE hardware of their choice... So there is cause for concern
that the cable carriers might be able to get LSPs straight out of the
CMTS devices into PEs running at the ISP premises, but are refusing to
do so, to restrict the cable modem unbundling framework in a manner
which is not going to stand up for 2 seconds in a complaint at the CRTC
(and I'm getting quite good at those).
Has anybody got a better architecture to propose? Do not say PPPoE
please... I want something that is IPv6 friendly.
I still have in the back of my mind the idea of #1) using IPv6, #2)
partitioning the flow field range and #3) doing admission control on
certain ranges in combination with peering on an interdomain basis with
QoS using a specific DSCP profile for peering across (not the Internet),
but across the PSTN equivalent of a bill&keep IMT trunk if you want.
My thinking is of getting an LSP from the CMTS serving the cable modem
CPE of the third party ISP, straight into the third party ISP.
This would allow a fully bridged dedicaed LAN per third party ISP
end-customer (one per home, using the DOCSIS session identifier to
filter out broadcast traffic from neighbours on the same optical node).
The third party ISP would then only need to have an IPv6 router with one
leg into each LAN of each of its residential customers so that NDP works
as-is.
Does anyone make an IPv6 router with say, the capability of 1000
subinterfaces? I'd like to have an off-list discussion on this topic
with those who feel their gear is up to the task.
Does anyone make a tunnel stack for Windows XP which supports IPv4
tunnel over IPv6? Does anyone make a router which supports an IPv4
tunnel over IPv6? Does anyone make a VoIP ATA which supports IPv6? Does
anoyone make an ADSL2+ router + H.264 settop box which supports an IPv4
tunnel over IPv6?
Anybody in Asia with the genius to make this happen ?
Best regards,
-=Francois=-
francois(_at_)menards(_dot_)ca
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For references, see a copy of my email dating from July 17, 1999:
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 14:13:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Francois D. Menard" <fm-listproc(_at_)fmmo(_dot_)ca>
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Equal Access Working Group ...
Message-ID:
<Pine(_dot_)LNX(_dot_)3(_dot_)95(_dot_)990717135535(_dot_)15785A-100000(_at_)uyquist(_dot_)fmmo(_dot_)ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Fred, everyone,
I wonder if we should not have a new working group within the IETF that
would issue informational RFC's on the topics of equal access
using Internet Protocol technologies.
Here in Canada, there is a trend in the government mandating shared access
of the high speed Internet access facilities of the incumbent carriers.
This means that instead of mandating shared access to the spectrum, the
government seems to be increasingly satisfied with the incumbents offering
interfaces at Layer 3 to satisfy the pouding requests of the non-facility
based ISP's for a reasonable rate for a connection at the last mile.
Unfortunately, we are already facing a huge problem:
The CATV industry is lining up on variants of Source-Address-Looked
Routing (a.k.a policy routing in Cisco-land) (not to call it source
routing which seems to have more of a meaning for putting the path that
the packet should take in the header of the packet). This isin't too
bad as long as the CATV operators are confident to be capable of
implementing this in a scaleable manner. So far, only Regional
Cablesystems of Sudbury/Timmins Ontario has done it and seems to
be satisfied with it.
The huge problem is that Bell Canada seems to have unilaterally
decided to choose the hidious PPPoE solution for implementing
shared access of its monopoly on the last mile for high-speed
Internet access.
I am no expert at this, but my recent research demonstrates that
looking at IP protocols from the angle of Equal Access makes you
think very differently. Equal Access MPLS ... hmmm
I for one would like to see a serious effort on the part of the
IETF to make recommendations which would represent thorough concensus
from the part of IETF members.
For example, I would like to see a debate on the issue of the scalabiluty
of path selection according to the source address of the packet. This
seems to me the only fair solution because it is the only one that would
route with information that is present on the simplest packet. Routing
based on TOS, Tags or any other form of packet differentiation basically
implies that the person who is in control of the packet differentiation
has a bigger hammer than you. And we're talking here of "equal access
routing". Is is fair to say that source-looked routing is "fragile"
or "slow", with zillions of startups implementing fast paths based on
IP header information on a per packet basis ?
Pointers, ideas, anything ?
-=Francois=-
--
francois(_at_)menards(_dot_)ca
819 692 1383
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf