Subject: RE: ISP Cases Draft: Which sections have too much information?

From: "MicklesCK" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 17:44:58 -0500

[ post by non-subscriber.  with the massive amount of spam, it is easy to miss
  and therefore delete posts by non-subscribers.  if you wish to regularly
  post from an address that is not subscribed to this mailing list, send a
  message to <listname>[email-masked] and ask to have the alternate
  address added to the list of addresses from which submissions are
  automatically accepted. ]

I've removed more of the figures from the DSL section
of the draft.  We can continue to pair it down as necessary 
but I wanted folks to see the draft with the changes so 
far.  The draft should be posted shortly.

Cleve...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
> [email-masked]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 10:10 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: V6ops
> Subject: Re: ISP Cases Draft: Which sections have too much information? 
> 
> 
> >From the WG meeting today there was consensus that there
> >was too much information in the draft.  Can we get specific
> >feedback on which sections should be paired back?
> >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mickles-v6ops-isp-cases-02.txt
> 
>   i understand your motive to document the operational details, but
>   i don't think the detail all down to the copper level will help
>   readers - readers will need a proper level of abstraction.
> 
>   for instance:
> 
> page 20, figure 3.3.2
> page 22, figure 3.3.3
> page 23, figure 3.3.4
>   do you really need to go into ATM/AAL5?  i don't think it make any
>   difference even if we remove all ATM/AAL5 details (there's no real
>   reference to ATM/AAL5 in the text).  there's no reference to PPPoE,
>   or PPPoA - there's no difference in the description.  the most
>   important points are
>   (1) there are 3 IP devices - customer hosts, customer router, and
>       ISP edge router
>   (2) customer router and ISP edge router will establish a 
> point-to-point
>       connectivity, either by ATM PVC, PPPoE, or PPPoA.
>   (3) in some cases, ISP edge router uses L2TP to aggregate 
> connections
>   (4) customer router may implement NAT (sigh)
> 
>   if you abstract it to proper level, subsections in 3.3.2 will become
>   a single diagram.
> 
> <--customer------>                <--ISP---------->
> 
> +-----+  +-------+                +----+------+
> |Hosts|--+Router +----------------+    ISP    |  C  
> +-----+  +-------+                |    Edge   +=>O
>                                   |   Router  |  R
>                                   +-----------+  E
> 
>   same goes to section 3.6 (public access wireless LAN).  i 
> don't think
>   there's any difference between 802.11b-based solution and 
> 802.11x-based
>   solution, with respect to IPv6 transition.
> 
> itojun
>