Jim-san, Thank you for your thoughtful opinions and advices. Again, I believe this "ISP-to-Customer site-configuration" is one of the most urgent issues for the WG, because no non-technical customers can join to IPv6 world unless we provide any solution. This positive discussion will help us to solve the issue.
> > Then, there seems three proposals shown below for this > > purpose. What is your opinion for each proposed mechanism? > > OK. But I want to apply these to real deployment and can't do that on first read. So my responses at this point are an architectural view not an implementation view which I will have by the IETF meeting I hope. Understand. FYI, some ISPs will (or want to) start IPv6/DSL services hopefully in 2002, and we will see some working-in-commercial-services implementations soon. > So I can see having two approaches to solve the link or off line situations. But the DHCP6+PD is more robust and can be used in all situations. APD+RA+PD is the lightweight solution. I agree with your opinion that APD is the minimally required lightweight solution and DHCPv6 is the "FULL-SERVICE" solution. It's not clear to me how you think the RA+PD proposal be merged into APD. Could you kindly explain the details? > I agree but I believe we can have a stateless and stateful solution for different needs. Absolutely. --- Toshi Yamasaki / NTT Communications -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
