Antonio, Regardless of whether the ISP bridges the NBMA links or not, the CPE router will not propagate the ND or NS messages onto these links. The Ethernet and Wi-Fi BMA LAN segments are separate logical links from each other and the ISP link(s). How will the CPE router be "convinced" to bridge these link-local scoped messages off link? Best Regards, Jeffrey Dunn Info Systems Eng., Lead MITRE Corporation. (301) 448-6965 (mobile) -----Original Message----- From: Antonio Querubin [mailto:tony@xxxxxxxx] Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 1:35 PM To: Dunn, Jeffrey H. Cc: Thomas Narten; Fred Baker; 6man-ads@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; SAVI Mailing List; william.allen.simpson@xxxxxxxxx; Hesham Soliman; IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Erik Nordmark; savi-ads@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; IPv6 Operations; Thomson; v6ops-ads@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Robin Mersh; Mailing List; Susan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 Subject: RE: Fwd: Broadband Forum liaison to IETF on IPv6 security On Fri, 6 Nov 2009, Dunn, Jeffrey H. wrote: > The problem is IMHO the following: How to assign an IPv6 UGA to CPE > hosts attached to a BMA LAN (usually Ethernet or Wi-Fi) that is in turn > connected via a CPE router through an NBMA link (cable modem or DSL) to > an ISP router that provides Internet access. Currently, there are two And what happens when there are multiple CPE routers a) connected via a BMA LAN to the DSL or cable modem and/or b) 'connected' via separate NBMA links but are on the same WAN subnet (assigned by the ISP) I think in the latter, if the ISP decides to silo the individual NBMA links then they need to adjust for that in how they do the sub-delegation which is I think what the issue is. But if the ISP actually bridges the separate NBMA links, then there's no silo issue and the CPE can pretend they're in 'a'. Antonio Querubin 808-545-5282 x3003 e-mail/xmpp: tony@xxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf