I read arch-04. I want to suggest some minor changes to section 3.2.2.1. First, we have 8 IPv6 Hosts, can we number/name them H1 through H8? Second, H3 and H4 have, I guess, two network interfaces, can we number them as H3.B, H3.E and H4.B/H4.E. (Diagrams in section 3.2.2.2 should number their hosts too. I don't know if they should be H9-H12, or H1-H4)
The top label for Network B/E should say instead "Network B(E)" and the bottom label for Network B/E should say instead "Network E(B)" I suggest labelling the link from CER to Internal Router as "Link F" (or Network F) I wonder if we should identify architectural statements as numbered requirements. This doesn't have to imply that we write things in a list form. I suggest adding this text to 3.2.2.1, after the diagram; ==== In this diagram there is one CER. It has a single uplink interface. It has three additional interfaces connected to Network A, Link F, and Network B. IPv6 Internal Router (IR) has four interfaces connected to Link F, Network C, Network D and Network E. Network B and Network E have been bridged, likely inadvertedly. This could be as a result of connecting a wire between a switch for Network B and a switch for Network E. Any of logical Networks A through F might be wired or wireless. Where multiple hosts are shown, this might be through one or more physical ports on the CER or IPv6 (IR), wireless networks, or through one or more layer-2 only ethernet switches. ==== page 21, paragraph 2, "the internal operation": s/should/SHOULD/ section 3.4.2 as well. oh, wait. no RFC2119 text at all. Is it inappropriate for an architecture to state requirements in 2119 language? I'm also surprised that we think we have to cope with flash renumbering as a regular event, rather than a service-interrupting, ISP truck roll catastrophy. _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
