Re: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft

[james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>]

On Jul 20, 2009, at 09:07, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> Most important issue:
>
> "The CPE Router may also support prefix sub-delegation."
>
> We should make this a MUST. I don't want to end up in the situation  
> where I get a crappy DSL IPv6 CPE from my ISP and I can't use my own  
> CPE because there is no subdelegation.

Careful with that axe... if we're going to require prefix sub- 
delegation in best-practice CPE routers, then I contend we absolutely  
need to specify how that's done with zero configuration.  Are we ready  
to do that yet?  I don't believe we are.  Very happy to be proven  
wrong about that.

> If that's too hard, then we must mandate the ability for ISP- 
> provided CPEs to run in bridge mode. (But then that CPE would  
> probably still need a global address for management.) Preferably the  
> ISP-provided CPE would go in bridge mode automatically when a more  
> capable CPE is present.  I guess this could happen if the ISP-CPE  
> receives a PD request.

My understanding is that some providers expect to provision their  
networks in an unnumbered fashion, i.e. they MUST be a router, not a  
bridge, and their integrated hosts obtain global addresses by self- 
assigning from the router's delegated prefix.  Having another router  
come along and dynamically replace the integrated router without  
disturbing the host strikes me as a tricky problem.


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