#15: use case #1 does not justify standardization of this option
Use case #1 should remove the reference to walled gardens as a motivation
(see RFC 3002, section 4.2.1 and other tickets on this theme).
This option does not obviate the need for customer edge routers (CPEs) to
route ("to avoid routing on the CPE"). Why should we not expect a router
to route?
Furthermore, this use case does not justify why customer edge routers
would need this. Instead, this use case documents a need for a protocol
to provision network provider edge routers, which is something different.
Recommendation: remove this use case.
--
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Reporter: ek@… | Owner: draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-
Type: defect | option@…
Priority: major | Status: new
Component: dhcpv6 | Milestone:
-route-option | Version:
Severity: - | Keywords:
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/mif/trac/ticket/15>
mif <http://tools.ietf.org/mif/>
_______________________________________________
mif mailing list
mif@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
