RE: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft

[Antonio Querubin <tony@lava.net>]

On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, teemu.savolainen@nokia.com wrote:

> Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 19:15:27 +0100 From: teemu.savolainen@nokia.com 
> To: bs7652@att.com, shemant@cisco.com, v6ops@ops.ietf.org Cc: 
> wbeebee@cisco.com Subject: RE: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft
>
> Hi,
>
> In the case I look the network allocates unique /64 for the PPP link, 
> and thereby allows 2^64-1 or so addresses configured from that prefix 
> (network reserves one address for the router on the SP side of the 
> point-to-point link).
>
> Do we have terminology issue here? You could indeed say all hosts 
> configure IPv6 address from the prefix received via WAN interface, so 
> from that point of view all these hosts are logically connected to WAN, 
> although in reality they go trough the ND proxy device.
>
> It cannot be bridged, as the link types are different (PPP and 
> Ethernet), but proxied mode.

That assumes the WAN link is PPP.  However, it could be bridged ethernet, 
in which case the ND proxy seems the path of least resistance.

Antonio Querubin
whois:  AQ7-ARIN