RE: ULAs [Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-03.txt WGLC]

["Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hemant Singh (shemant) [mailto:shemant@cisco.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 4:17 PM
> To: Dan Wing (dwing); Mark Smith
> Cc: Brian E Carpenter; Fred Baker (fred); v6ops@ops.ietf.org; 
> kurtis@kurtis.pp.se; rbonica@juniper.net; 
> draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: ULAs [Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-03.txt WGLC]
> 
> Mark and Dan,
> 
> Please see this draft below which is a placeholder for any work moved
> out of CE Rtr Phase I work.
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wbeebee-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-bis-01
> 
> Please see section 6.4.  One reason we moved zeroconf out of 
> Phase I of
> the CE Rtr document is because folks may not agree if zeroconf even
> belongs in an IETF CE Rtr document.  Another reason was to decide what
> IETF RFC we could use to reference mDNS - that is what you guys are
> currently discussing.

So - that means nobody cares about how to provision the CE router,
or it means we leave it to vendors, or we assume IPv4 will be used
to configure the CE router (e.g., the common 192.168.1.1), or is
the problem just that we lack a stable reference for mDNS?  I'm sure
you recall, between the time draft-wbeebee-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-bis-01
was posted (October 2009) and today, there was a long and active 
discussion on the main IETF list regarding Cheshire's multicast DNS;
would that discussion and its conclusion (whatever that may be) have
bearing on v6ops decision to pull mDNS from draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router?

-d

> Thanks,
> 
> Hemant 
> 
> 
>