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

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

Alan,

I don't understand your case (b) below.  If a single CPE Rtr in case (b)
is connected to, say, two different L3 first hop addresses (on one or
more SP routers), since both WAN interfaces on the CPE Rtr reside in one
device the internals of the device can forward traffic between the two
WAN interface and the device LAN interfaces.  Why would we need routing
between internals of the device?  Sure, if more than one CPE Rtr device
resides in a single home, I have already said, the two CPE Rtrs in the
home should use RIPng to share route information.

Also, since we have already said RIPng is optional on the WAN interface
of the CPE Rtr, I don't know what else to say.  If a deployment does not
want to use RIPng between the CPE Router WAN interface and the SP, that
is already included in the CPE Rtr document.  The same document also
discusses using RIPng on the WAN interface has scaling implications on
the SP L3 edge facing the home.  So the email Fred said about thousands
of devices is already something that I have replied to.

Hemant

-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Kavanagh [mailto:alan.kavanagh@ericsson.com] 
Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2009 9:06 PM
To: Brian E Carpenter; Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: james woodyatt; IPv6 Operations; Wes Beebee (wbeebee)
Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments

Its fair to say that CPE Routers in general will not behave like routers
on their upstream link to the IP_Edge BNG node.

I would split this into two segments, a) The home CPE type Router and
b)Retail/Enterprise Router that is connected to two or more IP_Edge/BND
nodes. In case b) the use of some dynamic routing protocol would be
preferable and makes sense.

Alan K