On Fri, 4 Jul 2008, Shin Miyakawa wrote:Especially, Mikael, how do you fix it ? This is still you have not answer yet.I don't write RFCs. I don't really read them a lot either, just when I absolutely need to. On the other hand, I know a lot about router architecture and network operational issues and I know what I think would be the best operational situation to have for IPv6 in 10 years, and that's why I'm advocating the solution I'm advocating. If you want to remove the merit of my proposal on the basis that I haven't supplied RFC quality text to support it, well, then the IETF process is broken because it doesn't listen to what the operational community has to say. I am supplying operational input here, not RFC proposals.
This is fine, if there is a real need the text can be edited to match required format. The real questions are:
1. Is this really a need?2. If so for all IPv6 end devices or just CPE routers that have other devices aggregated to them via copper, fiber, wireless? 3. What about other devices that act as a router but are the actual end-use device? Do we ignore them, create a diffrent RFC and then reference it? 4. Is there a consensus that these are worth the WG taking up and dealing with?
Again, so I like the following original text of draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-00.txt ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ 5.3. Acquire IPv6 address and other configuration parametersThe CPE Router must process RAs received on the WAN interface and as instructed by the RA message, acquire global IPv6 address for WAN interface using SLAAC or DHCPv6.------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------I have no problem with this, apart from that it doesn't say what should be done if there is no WAN address received.
Can you propose an addition or solution?