Re: new draft on IPv6 CPE router available for review

[Shin Miyakawa <miyakawa@nttv6.jp>]

Mikael,

First of all, thank you for your reply. 
I think that your vision is quite important.

> I never said all IPv6 speaking HOSTS need to do this. For me a CPE is 
> something that is involved in the delivery of a service, not an end user 
> host device. 

"Something that is involved in the delivery of a service", 
can be an end user host device.
^^^^^^

Or, how about any applications on the CPE router ?

Please think about following picture.

Access Concentorator <----- PPP or whatever upstream link -----> A CPE that is "Something that is involved in the delivery of a service"


This CPE may be a router or a host. there is no difference between
two of those from ISP point of view.

Acutally, there are many service using just a PC to terminate ISP upstream.
So, why you exclude this case from (v6)CPE ?

> I see two different services, one which is for connecting a 
> single device and nothing else, and another service where the customer has 
> a router and several hosts behind it. If this is another definition of a 
> CPE, then I need to change my terminology to avoid confusion. Am I using 
> the wrong terminology?

As other folks write to this mailing list, we have to clarify terminology.

> > At the same time, please note that we have no way to identify a CPE is a router
> > or just a host.
> 
> The customer will have to decide this at the time of purchase of the 
> service.

If so, I think that people will purchase "one IPv6 global address service
for a host" and USE V6NAT to connect any device in their home network,
because probably this service will be less expensive than 
"Prefix Delegated service for a routed CPE".
That's too bad. 


So, I don't like this idea...
"The customer will have to decide this at the time of purchase of the service."

Best regards,

Shin Miyakawa