Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 14:16:32 +1300

On 2009-03-31 08:55, Stark, Barbara wrote:
> Consider a scenario where a home has 2 routers, each connected to a
> different access network (maybe one is cable and the other DSL). Each
> SP, in addition to providing Internet access, also provides access to a
> walled garden of special services accessible only by their subscribers.
> This walled garden uses an address space not accessible from the
> Internet. This walled garden might require the CPE router to set up a
> separate WAN connection, or it might not.
>

I don't think the IETF is in the business of making it easier for
providers to set up walled gardens. Anyway, there's no reason
a separate connection would be needed; this would presumably just
be a perfectly normal IPv6 prefix that didn't happen to be routed
on the global Internet. It would just be part of 0::/128 as far
as the CPE is concerned.

    Brian

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 22:15:11 -0700

On Apr 2, 2009, at 6:16 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> providers to set up walled gardens.

I don't think the IETF is in the business of telling providers how to  
run their businesses, walled garden or otherwise.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 11:39:02 +1200

> run their businesses, walled garden or otherwise.

Indeed not. The point is to make our drafts of general use, not specific
to particular business models. That was the purpose of the technical
half of my comment.

   Brian