RE: Comments on IPv6 Prefix Subdelegation

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: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fred Baker
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 8:06 AM
To: Yiu L. Lee
Cc: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router@tools.ietf.org; draft-donley-ipv6-cpe-rtr-use-cases-and-reqs@tools.ietf.org; 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
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------