On 11/8/12 10:07 AM, "Mikael Abrahamsson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 8 Nov 2012, Howard, Lee wrote: > >>> I think we should aim higher do what's best in the long run, and then >>> CPE manufacturers will adapt. Yes, these new CPEs might be USD5-10 >>>more >>> than current generation, initially, but as these requirements spread >>> and more people/ISPs buy, it'll be the new lowest standard and cost >>> will drop. >> >> It's very generous of you to spend other people's money this way. > >What is your suggestion? > >New requirements mean higher spec hw, I don't really see a way around >that. Do you? Stop solving non-existent problems in the most complex way possible. Stop defining "what's best in the long run" as "support Jari and Mark's infinitely complex home networks without configuration." I've made this point to the WG several times. Complexity leads to unpredictability. > >For ISPs who want to save those few dollars, they can offer NAT444 and >then do not need to require more functionality in their CPEs. In the >areas >where customers have a choice, let them choose. Is anyone choosing the Homenet model? Lee This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout. _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
