Hello Med,
I have a question about the deployment scenario you have in mind for this
draft.
In the document you say: A service provider may want to deploy DS-lite without
using DHCP., but it is not completely clear to me what is the SLAAC only
scenario you are referring to.
I'm thinking
Hi,
Thanks for your work on this issue.
I have some comments:
1. From 6a44 address format, the 6a44 client can only act as a IPv6
host but not IPv6 node which could attach to a IPv6 LAN. I think this
is different from draft-lee-softwire-6rd-udp.
2. For host to host 6a44 communication, I think
Thanks Washam for your detailed comments.
Personal reaction below.
Le 7 oct. 2010 à 13:46, Washam Fan a écrit :
Hi,
Thanks for your work on this issue.
I have some comments:
1. From 6a44 address format, the 6a44 client can only act as a IPv6
host but not IPv6 node which could attach
Le 7 oct. 2010 à 02:56, Yiu L. Lee a écrit :
Hi Fred,
This is an interesting idea, but I will argue this is as complex as L2TP
softwire. When Brian, Remi and I discussed, we would like to have a simple
and cost effective technology that could be deployed by SP w/o upgrading the
CPE.
This is an interesting idea, but I will argue this is as complex as L2TP
softwire. When Brian, Remi and I discussed, we would like to have a simple
and cost effective technology that could be deployed by SP w/o upgrading the
CPE.
Indeed.
We need some reliable and easily deployable
Le 7 oct. 2010 à 15:45, Ole Troan a écrit :
This is an interesting idea, but I will argue this is as complex as L2TP
softwire. When Brian, Remi and I discussed, we would like to have a simple
and cost effective technology that could be deployed by SP w/o upgrading the
CPE.
Indeed.
We
Le 7 oct. 2010 à 05:21, Olivier Vautrin a écrit :
Hi all, very interesting draft.
I think it would be worthwhile to elaborate a bit more in the draft why
Teredo is not viable and thus an alternative is needed.
In this draft, I see 2 issues described for Teredo:
1) clients sometimes
Hi Yiu,
-Original Message-
From: v4tov6transition-boun...@ietf.org
[mailto:v4tov6transition-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Yiu L. Lee
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 5:57 PM
To: Templin, Fred L; Brian E Carpenter; Ole Troan
Cc: Softwires; v4tov6transit...@ietf.org
Subject: Re:
Remi,
[...]
ISPs that aren't concerned with what their customer would like to have will
eventually face competition.
we are in complete agreement of the end goal. it is just how we get there...
A key point is that supporting 6a44 is very inexpensive compared to other
supports they have
I can't say how bad operators want to support IPv6 over legacy CPEs. If
there is demand. Can somebody (except me :-) ) speak it out?
Well, when we surveyed 31 ISPs for draft-ietf-v6ops-isp-scenarios,
we found When asked which types of equipment are unable to support IPv6, the
most common answer
Olivier,
Rémi has mainly answered you. In particular, the operational problems
caused by missing Teredo servers don't just harm the customers of
the ISP concerned; like missing 6to4 relays, they also harm customers
of *other* ISPs. 6a44 doesn't have this problem.
I think it would be worthwhile
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 5:07 PM, Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
I can't say how bad operators want to support IPv6 over legacy CPEs. If
there is demand. Can somebody (except me :-) ) speak it out?
Well, when we surveyed 31 ISPs for draft-ietf-v6ops-isp-scenarios,
we found
Roberta, Mohamed,
AFTR name option was removed as a result of a concerns raised by Jari Arkko
and Ralph Droms during IESG review. They were very clear that defining two
options to configure the same parameter is not acceptable.
Regarding scenario mentioned by Mohamed, since you are already
Dear Tomek,
Thank you for this clarification.
Providing the IP address in the option is not flexible enough and especially it
may not be recommended to achieve load balancing. Otherwise the DHCPv6 server
should act as a load balancer, which is not currently our preference.
To illustrate more
14 matches
Mail list logo
