Re: new draft on IPv6 CPE router available for review

[Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>]

On Tue, 1 Jul 2008, Shin Miyakawa wrote:

> to terminate the IPv6 uplink by itself, so from practical point of view, 
> we strongly recommend to assign a global IPv6 address.

Well, my personal opinion is that this makes Vista unfit to be a IPv6 CPE. 
We cannot adjust IPv6 address policy just because of certain design 
decisions on behalf of Microsoft.

It is my belief that customers (at least in the market I am in) will need 
to have a small CPE that is not an end host, and this is what the draft 
should be aimed at. Advocating PPP is also a very bad idea as this cements 
the use of LAC/LNS and tunneling, which is a really bad idea for future 
multicast use, as well as being more expensive than necessary.

My idea of a good IPv6 service is one that is purely IPv6 over ethernet, 
optionally with 1-2 q tags or mac-in-mac in the ISP part of the network, 
but definitely not involving PPP or L2TP anywhere in the path.

At least, how can we make the draft comply so that what I would like to do 
doesn't violate any draft? I can understand if both options are in there, 
but making my proposal a draft violation seems like a bad idea, as we both 
seem to agree that it's the proper thing to do?

--
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se