On 27 Feb 2013, at 19:57, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm not on the home net list and I need another list like I need a hole in > the head.
I know the feeling :) > However, I think section 3.4.1 is reasonably well written. I think it would > be good if > the following were added: > > ISPs are strongly encouraged to issue /48s to residential customers whenever > requested or hinted by the home gateway. > > Also, it appears that section 3.4.1 assumes a custom will change ISPs by > disconnecting provider A and then connecting provider B. It does not appear > to make a provision for connecting provider B and having a period of > transition with dual prefixes. This possibility should be considered and > addressed, IMHO. Thanks for the comments. I've added that into the WGLC feedback list. Tim > Owen > > > On Feb 27, 2013, at 5:56 AM, Tim Chown <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On 26 Feb 2013, at 14:07, "Brzozowski, John" >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> [jjmb] incorrect I have both, just stating that I have both. Apologies if >>> I was not clear. I also have a good # of home routers actively using IPv6 >>> enabled broadband today, ~3%. >> >> Congratulations, btw. That must be a large number when converted to real >> customers :) >> >> The homenet architecture assumes a CPE rather than a single host. It >> discusses ISP allocations in section 3.4.1 of >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-homenet-arch-07. As that text is in >> WGLC, any comments on that section would be welcome (preferably on the >> homenet list). >> >> Tim >> _______________________________________________ >> v6ops mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops > > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
