Re: [v6ops] draft-herbst-v6ops-cpeenhancements-00

[Don Sturek <[e-mail]>]

Hi Hermant,

On your point on the 40% of the deployments without broadband, we need to 
support the ability for those customers to add broadband later and to deploy 
smart energy devices on other links.  Therefore, the use case needs to be 
considered.

Don





________________________________
From: Hemant Singh (shemant) <[e-mail]>
To: IPv6 Operations <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; Hemant Singh (shemant) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Sun, November 7, 2010 4:16:16 PM
Subject: draft-herbst-v6ops-cpeenhancements-00

  
Tom,
 
Unless I see a picture for the routed topology of how the smart energy meter 
gateway is deployed in the home, it’s not clear what one should look into for 
integrating such a device in an existing home.   Also, your document says, 40% 
of the homes do not even have broadband access.   Thus in such a home with no 
broadband access, one may not have any other router in the home to merge with 
the smart energy meter and hence none of the features in your doc are required.  
 The requirements in this document have to be more specific.   Anyway, whatever 
little I understand from this document, I see that this new router gets a prefix 
from the energy company adds multi-homing to the home with a broadband 
connection.  The energy  meter device/router also gets added to the home 
network.   Most of the other requirements in your document have been discussed 
by the design team of the IPv6 CE Router Phase II document.  We’d be happy to 
work with you and flush out your requirements and see what we can do to the 
Phase II or Phase III document.    Your document has also not mentioned basic 
issues like multiple default gateways, source-address selection, and DNS server 
selection (see 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-troan-multihoming-without-nat66-00) that are 
issues to tackle first for a multi-homed network.   
 
Also, note in the Future Work section (section 3) of your document, there is 
this bullet that already contradicts the IETF v6ops IPv6 CE Router Phase one 
document in the RFC Editor queue 
(http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router/).
 
[o  Define precoedures for gateways to generate a ULA if required]
 
The draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router says generation of the ULA is a MUST, not 
“if required” as your bullet says above.  See requirement L-1 in section 4.3 of 
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router.  Also, it is not clear what you mean by 
“define procedures”.   One task in the procedures of ULA setup is automatic 
which is the ULA prefix generation algorithm  specified by RFC 4193.   So what 
other tasks in the procedures are we talking about? 

 
Regards,
 
Hemant
 

Hemant Singh
Technical Leader.engineering
Product Development
[e-mail]
Phone: [phone]
Cisco Systems, Inc.
United States
Cisco.com- http://www.cisco.com


For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html