RE: New (-02) version of IPv6 CPE Router draft is available for review

["Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com>]

I see.  Thanks for sharing the experience.  But the TCP issue mentioned in section 3.2 of RFC4943 says the host is in a router-less network.  Host C in the example you gave sits in a routed network because host C is behind the CPE Router.  Does that make any difference?  

Anyhow, for your example since C and B sit in different home, their ULA and GUA prefixes are off-link to each other, so why would host C issue an address resolution?

Hemant 

-----Original Message-----
From: Alain Durand [mailto:alain_durand@cable.comcast.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 5:44 PM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant); Ralph Droms (rdroms)
Cc: Mark Townsley (townsley); Jimmy Chuang (cchuang); Rémi Denis-Courmont; v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wes Beebee (wbeebee)
Subject: Re: New (-02) version of IPv6 CPE Router draft is available for review

This has not been my experience using multiple addresses. You may want to read some of my earlier work:

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4943.txt?number=4943
http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-roy-v6ops-v6onbydefault-01.txt

  - Alain.