[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft
From: Stark, Barbara [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 5:35 PM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant); IPv6 Operations
Cc: Wes Beebee (wbeebee)
Subject: RE: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft
Thanks for this new draft. I have a few comments:
1. The statements around strong hosts in 5.3.2 are confusing to me.
- I had to go searching for what a strong host is -- perhaps a
reference to RFC 1122 would be useful, if that is the right reference?
- The statements in the current version (section 5.3.2) are: "The
Unnumbered model is incompatible with the strong host model on the CPE
router. The unnumbered model may be inappropriate for use with certain
deployments where a device that uses the strong host model can operate
as a CPE Router." It's not clear to me just what it is that's
incompatible vs. inappropriate. Could this be clarified a little?
If you scanned the archives of v6ops, the incompatibility has been
clarified. Anyway, here is a summary of what transpired and why this
text. Some division of NTT ( I think its NTT West) in Japan uses a
Windows PC in the customer's home where the PC has some patch provided
by the SP to install on the PC and then this PC acts as a CPE Rtr.
These comments in our draft relate to such a deployment and Shin from
NTT asked us to add such a blurb in our draft. Obviously suck hacked up
router code on Windows will have problems with strong vs. weak host
model. We didn't want to go into any mode details with this text and
since Shin who raised this issue was fine with our text, we'd like to
leave it like that.
2. Has any thought been given to the role a CPE router should play in
supporting a local domain name scheme?
Even in one rev before this rev of the CPE Router, in section 8.6, we
have mentioned local DNS.
[For local DNS queries for configuration, the CPE Router may include a
DNS server to handle local queries.]
Most routers today do have their own DNS function, and send their own IP
address to LAN hosts as the DNS server to use. Many people have said (in
various places) how undesirable it will be for people to have to type
IPv6 addresses when they're accessing a particular LAN host, and how
nice it would be if all LAN hosts could be accessed by URLs, with the
CPE router providing resolution. It's been suggested that some form of
Dynamic DNS might be used, for hosts to tell the CPE Router what name
they want to use, and the IP address(es) associated with that name. The
problem is that many forms of Dynamic DNS currently exist, so it isn't
really "standard". It would be nice if there were some standard
recommendation for hosts to create entries in the CPE router DNS
3. Please change "DSL Forum" to "Broadband Forum" in the Abstract.
Will do - thanks for this correction.
Thanks for the review.