Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments

[james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>]

On Mar 23, 2009, at 14:47, Fred Baker wrote:
> On Mar 23, 2009, at 10:58 AM, james woodyatt wrote:
> > p2. If I were running an ISP, I'd be very suspicious of this  
> > requirement on CPE router vendors that they MUST support "at least  
> > one of two" and not both WAN interface models.  Fortunately, I'm on  
> > the other side of that fence, so I'm very pleased to see that I can  
> > refuse to support the Unnumbered Model and still comply with Best  
> > Current Practice.
>
> That wasn't how I interpreted it. It said that you need to support  
> both, as some ISPs will go one way and some the other.

Then I think this recommendation should be worded differently.  It  
could better describe this by using language that makes sense from the  
perspective of CPE router developers, e.g.:

  Service providers require CPE routers to support at least one of two
  WAN interface models, of which only one MUST be active on the CPE  
router
  at any given time.

I think that would more clearly describe Fred's interpretation of the  
language I'm seeing in the existing draft.  As the draft stands, I  
don't see any recommendation that CPE routers support both of the two  
WAN interface models, only a recommendation to support "at least one"  
of them.


--
james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>
member of technical staff, communications engineering