RE: Comments on draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-01.txt

["Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com>]

Antonio,

BTW, we don't mention physical interfaces anywhere in the draft from day
one of -00 to -02 versions of the draft. I am just asking a question if
anyone sees a need for more than one physical WAN ports on the CPE
Router. Barbara has already replied and I replied to her - we are not
going to add any mention of number of physical WAN ports for the CPE
Router. 

As for your comment below, even a router needs to run ND at layer 2.
Besides, routing, we do plan to cover minor and relevant ND behavior for
the CPE Router in our draft.  We had to mention physical interface in
the attempt for a new definition of the WAN interface to clarify the WAN
interface on the standalone CPE Router vs. the WAN interface when the
CPE Router gets embedded in a device like a broadband modem.  I thought
we were clear from our new definition (shown below) from this morning to
delineate between embedded CPE Router vs. standalone CPE Router. 

WAN interface - a single physical network interface on the standalone
CPE Router that is used to connect the router to the access network of
the Service 
                         ^^^^^^^^                          ^^^^^^^^^^
Provider. When the CPE Router is embedded in a device that connects to
the WAN, this interface is a logical network interface that bridges the
device to the CPE Router. Some devices which can have an embedded CPE
router are: a cable or DSL modem, or a cellular telephone, etc. 

I know now, "single" doesn't work above - that can be easily massaged
out of the definition. Further, it's not that easy to call the WAN
interface as a routed interface because soon as the interface becomes an
internal interface in an embedded device, the WAN interface is a bridge
to the broadband modem internal interface so that the CPE Router gets
all IPv6 traffic from the broadband modem. 

We have heard your comments. We'll see what we can do to make the text
more clear for WAN interface and embedded vs. standalone delineation. 

Thanks.

Hemant

-----Original Message-----
From: Antonio Querubin [mailto:tony@lava.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 5:45 PM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: Stark, Barbara; v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: Comments on draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-01.txt

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:

> Thanks for this email. For the purposes of description of behavior of 
> a CPE Router, all we are asking for is how many physical WAN interface

On the one hand you say                         ^^^^^^^^

> ports will the CPE Router have? We have recommended one. We could care

> less about any other physical layer behavior. We are defining routing 
> behavior that sits abstracted from link or physical layers. Where a
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^         ^^^^^^^^
On the other hand you say

> layer 2 affects IPv6 ND protocol behavior, we mention it - like PPP 
> address acquisition does not perform DAD.

Why not just call it a routed interface and get away from the word
physical altogether?


Antonio Querubin
whois:  AQ7-ARIN