review for draft-kaippallimalil-v6ops-ipv6-bbnet-00

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

I glanced thru this draft.  Please see my comments below. 

1. Is the draft for Standards Track, Informational, or a BCP?

General comment.  Cable wrote a draft to inform IETF of their IPv6
standards when cable was complete with their standards.  Why is DSL
giving an FYI to IETF via this draft when your IPv6 standards are
clearly not completed?

The draft that cable wrote is draft-mule-cablelabs-docsis3-ipv6-00.txt.


2. Why not add the word "Fixed" to the title of the draft since the
draft is 
   dealing with only fixed broadband deployments?

3. I have a problem with the word Broadband in the title of the draft.
The draft
   should not speak for cable broadband deployment. We may want to add
DSL/FTTH or what have you,
   so that the title is totally clear.  Cable also does not need this
draft because cable
   completed such standards for IPv6 two years back.

4. In the Introduction section, you say "aggregation networks".  There
is no RFC from IETF that
   defines what an aggregation broadband network is.  The term used by
IETF is access concentrator
   that is defined in RFC4388.

5. In section 3, 2nd para, what do you mean by the sentence:

   [In the case of a routed RG, the RG authenticates with the network on
behalf of
   the (trusted) hosts behind it.].

   If hosts in the home sit behind a router, the SP doesn't even see
these hosts
   if hosts acquire IPv6 address using SLAAC.  So where does the
question arise
   for "on behalf of hosts"? Am I missing something?

6. This text from the same section seems to be disjoint:

   [In upcoming networks based on IPv6, nomadic or mobile clients that
attach to such
   networks would find it easy to attach

   [RFC4779] describes IPv6 deployment options in a TR-059 architecture
   based on ATM access aggregation. ].


7. Section 4.1: what do you mean by "high address assignment
efficiency"?

8. I would rather that section 4.2 be a sub-section 4.1.2 - that's how
the flow
   of the sub-sections seem to be going. Similarly, section 4.3 should
be 4.1.3.


9. Section 4.2, around text that says:

   [In the routed RG case (1), RG1 configures its link local address and
   obtains a unique prefix in a router advertisement from the IP Edge.
   The address derived using this prefix is used in RG management
   traffic.]

   Why not use SLAAC or DHCPv6 for the management address? Also how is
the address 
   derived - please explain? Same questions for the bridged RG case in
ensuing paragraphs
   of this section.


10. Section 6. What is a sub-router?

11. Figure 7: This level of detail is not need in this draft. Refer to
your TR DSL report 
    for such details. 

12. Figure 9 : Why is there no NS DAD line after "7 DHCP Configuration"?
One needs to perform
    NS DAD for the DHCPv6 address as well.  The draft does say so in
text after the figure,
    but if you bothered to draw a figure, the figure should be complete

Hemant