[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: new draft on IPv6 CPE router available for review
Mikael Abrahamsson writes:
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008, EricLKlein@softhome.net wrote:
2. If so for all IPv6 end devices or just CPE routers that have other
devices aggregated to them via copper, fiber, wireless?
My requirement is only for home gateway devices, I don't want to change
the behaviour of end-hosts. My proposal is also to not remove any
functionality or limit it, just to add. I am not aware of my proposal
being in violation of any current wording in any document, but if it is, I
volunteer to participate in work in getting it fixed.
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?
I would say this is still a router, and it needs to choose a globally
reachable PD-IP (either a LAN interface or a loopback interface) to use
for communication with the outside world.
4. Is there a consensus that these are worth the WG taking up and dealing
with?
I believe there are at least two people who have chimed in saying that
they think this is a good idea, plus the authors of the draft also stated
that they were willing to bring in wording to allow for it.
It sounds to me like there is some agreement that there is something here in
need of defining/clarifying.
I agree this would be good for the WG to work on towards a consensus
provided we expand the scope a little to cover the rest of the situations
where routing functions are required.
Eric