Re: new draft on IPv6 CPE router available for review

[Shin Miyakawa <miyakawa@nttv6.jp>]

Hello, David :-)

> I would add my support to Mikael's request that the draft has the  
> option of having a global unicast WAN address OR having link-local  
> only WAN on a routing CPE. Would it be okay to incorporate the content  
> of Shin's draft into the CPE discussion/draft?

David, as we have discussed this several months off from this mailing list
in various places on the Earth, you know the reason why I said.

Then.... "OR" means sometime ambiguous.......

Actually, my opinion is

(A) the draft should have "discussions" text to explain why those are recommended
    and this draft should be more generalized not only for cable TV systems.

    For example, section 1 in this draft's clearly said that
    "WAN interface is Ethernet encapsulated", but it should be converted to
    "WAN interface may be Ethernet encapsulated but not limited too" 
    or something like that because we need to think about other semantics like PPP.

(B) Because a strong host model is one of possible implemenation of CPE, so

    "Global unicast WAN address" MUST be supported
       and                       ^^^^
    "Link-Local only WAN on a routing CPE" MAY be supported

as the "access concentrator"'s specification
which provides the service to the IPv6 CPE.


Best wishes,

Shin Miyakawa

P.S.

However I also prefer Mikael's model personally, 
we have to be very realistic and tolerant to 
any implemenations compatible with the standard.