Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-03.txt

[Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>]

Mark,

> To get the ball rolling ...
>
>
> "Section 4.1 WAN side configuration
>
>  WLL-1:  The IPv6 CE router MUST support IPv6 over Ethernet [RFC2464]."
>
>
> I don't see how that can be a MUST when the WAN interface may not
> support Ethernet framing e.g. a 3G/HSPDA or Wimax IPv6 CS WAN interface.
> Similarly for the PPPoE requirement (and arguably for the PPP
> requirement) -
>
> "WLL-2:  The IPv6 CE router MUST support IPv6 over PPP [RFC5072] and
>           PPPoE [RFC2516].  In a dual-stack environment with IPCP and
>           IPV6CP running over one PPP logical channel, the NCPs MUST be
>           treated as independent of each other and start and terminate
>           independently."
>
> I think it would be better to try to avoid making anything relating to
> IPv6-over-foo support MUSTs, keeping the scope to IPv6 CPE
> requirements. If IPv6-over-foo functions are in scope for the draft,
> then I'd suggest making treating them as separate sections, saying
> something like, "If the WAN interface supports Ethernet encapsulation,
> then it MUST support IPv6 over Ethernet [RFC2464] and PPP [RFC5072]
> and PPPoE [RFC2516].", "If the WAN interface supports ATM encapsulation,
> then it MUST support PPPoA [RFCXXXX]" etc.
>
> A future CPE's lack of compliance with this draft just because it
> doesn't support Ethernet framing on it's WAN interface would be a shame.

I think these are good suggestions.

Best,
Ole