|
Barabra, Could you please go to the archives of the v6ops mailer so that
you would understand that even after the cable folks did a eRouter
specification, we noticed some glaring problems with that specification and
decided to fix them in an IETF draft. So let’s not get into “It sounds like the cable industry already has its eRouter
document and doesn’t really need this”. This is a closed book
archives in v6ops. You can see all the problems we listed in
the eRouter in emails to v6ops. Then, of course, we wanted to specify a standalone home router
which is what the document has also focused on. Also, since now the
CPE Rtr document is completed for Cable and also getting there as a standalone
device for core router, I don’t understand the disparity you are talking
about. Please let us know specifically what other disparity has caused an
incomplete embedded CPE Rtr or a standalone router in the IETF v6ops version of
the draft. Also, sorry Wes didn’t mean SNMP when he said SNMP
– he was still talking in generic terms that use whatever is one’s
favorite management tool for one’s deployment. Lastly, we just don’t see a way out for this MSR issue to
go beyond manual. May I suggest, before we spend any more time on MSR,
can we get all the DSL requirements and then we can focus better on the whole
requirements set and suggest a holistic guidance. Hemant From: Stark, Barbara
[mailto:bs7652@att.com] SPs always have the option of using remote device configuration
protocols (e.g. SNMP, TR-069) to configure CPE routers that they supply. I do
not, realistically, expect retail CPE routers to support any of these options.
For TR-069, BBF can certainly be expected to define mechanisms to manage the
routing table. I assume that your SNMP suggestions were intended for the cable
company managed routers, and other (e.g. enterprise) SNMP-managed routers. |