Re: WPD-6, WAA-8, and WAA-9 of draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-04

[Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops@u-1.phicoh.com>]

In your letter dated Mon, 5 Apr 2010 16:01:02 -0500 you wrote:
>> I prefer to avoid unnumbered links.
>
>Unnumbered links are a deployment scenario that is highly desirable from
>some operators who wish to administratively separate the link between
the SP and the CPE and the home...  They are also, in some cases, more
>easily administrated from an addressing prespective than numbered links.
>
>Your proposal would deny the SP the ability to administer their network
>the way they want to.

That is a separate issue.

The first issue is that the DHCP PD RFC doesn't allow what I'm proposing,
whether the ISP agrees or not.

The second issue, ISPs who like unnumbered links. I respect that. However,
as I said in a previous mail. The difference between assigning an address
to a virtual interface or to the WAN interface itself is almost completely
invisible to the ISP. 

So if ISPs essentially cannot tell the difference, how can it matter to them?