Toshi-san, > Jim-san, > > Thank you for your thoughtful opinions and advices. Again, I > believe this
thank you for your kind words. > "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. Very true and very important we need to make this clear to customers. > > > > 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. Yes and good point. Also Hitachi did a talk here about their routers (Madrid IPv6 Summit) and it appears the DSL business is real for sure. As I said there are some initial dhcpv6 implementations and we have lots of stateless addr conf. For 2002 I doubt in best case we can get working group consensus till at least the December IETF meeting in 2002 so we will need to do this with vendor products as custom solution for 2002. But lets not wait to deploy DSL with IPv6. I can get into this with you offline how one can proceed wearing my implementation hat for prefix delegation. > > > 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 think Brian Haberman's draft -02 added pieces I thought were missing like lifetimes, and releases. So maybe that has already taken place. > > > I agree but I believe we can have a stateless and stateful > solution for > different needs. > > Absolutely. thank you, /jim > > --- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
