My comment to the advanced home network as described in the Small Multi-router network section is that it appears to go beyond the scope of a standard residential network. Sure there are those running multiple carrier-grade routers in their basement on the far end but these networks are not the typical home network. I do feel we need a specification for the delegation of PD into a routed network, but I would argue that the scope for prefix subdelgation in a multi-router network implementing dynamic routing protocols would go well beyond the bleeding edge residential user.
Also it may be helpful to expand the diagram to show at least one CPE router containing two upstreams to the same or different provider. Thanks, Jason Weil Network Architecture Cox Communications Phone: 404-269-6809 -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Fred Baker Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 8:06 AM To: Yiu L. Lee Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; IETF IPv6 Mailing List Subject: Re: Comments on IPv6 Prefix Subdelegation On Jul 30, 2009, at 1:52 PM, Yiu L. Lee wrote: > IMHO, it is high bar for the operators to support dynamic routing > protocol > for residential customers. Several people have made that comment. In which draft is this proposed? -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
