Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-unman-scenarios-00.txt

[Ronald van der Pol <Ronald.vanderPol@rvdp.org>]

On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 23:47:18 -0500, Bound, Jim wrote:

> Folks,
> 
> I don't agree with single link subnet.  This is not cool and implies I
> use bridges in my house.  In fact a colleague is now looking into UPnP
> to verify it is not stating this as we received rumor this was potential
> there too. People will run routers in their homes and SOHO's not only
> bridges with single subnet.
> That case will happen and we are not covering it.

You seem to be quite confident about that. Could you explain why you
think multiple subnets will arrive in SOHOs? I'm not saying I don't
agree with you. I just would like to know the scenarios where multiple
subnets are needed. And when they are needed. I think we have already
spent too much time on the scenario/analysis drafts. We should not
delay any longer when it is not absolutely necessary.

Another question is whether v6ops should pick this up. Maybe zerouter
(if that is going to be a WG) is a better place and we need to make
sure they cover IPv6, unmanaged networks and SOHOs too.

	rvdp