Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-unmaneval-01.txt

[Erik Nordmark <Erik.Nordmark@sun.com>]

Sorry for not catching this earlier.

Section 4.1 says
   An ND proxy can also be used to extend a /64 prefix to multiple
   physical links of different properties (e.g, an Ethernet and a PPP
   link).
 
But isn't this solving a non-problem?
Today in IPv4 (where a prefix is delegated to e.g. a SOHO customer)
this doesn't seem to be an issue; either separate addresses are assigned
to the PPP link, or the PPP link ends up being unnumbered.

Why don't those approaches apply to IPv6?

Section 4.1.1 talks of a larger unmanaged network.
But why do we think we need IPv6 specific solutions to this problem?

If IEEE 802 bridges are not ideal maybe either we should tell this to the IEEE,
or pursue the various ideas that where discussed in the ZEROUTER BoF a while
back. Locking us into ndproxy as a solution to a problem that no IETF WG has
carefully looked at seems unwise.

Based on these concerns of mine, I disagree with recommendation #2.

   Erik