Dear Dave,
I would personally appreciate if you can draft your thoughts in form of an I-D
before the meeting so that we can comment on them and discuss the points you
are raising.
FWIW, draft-operators-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation does not argue against
stateful but it elaborates on a
|-Original Message-
|From: Simon Perreault [mailto:simon.perrea...@viagenie.ca]
|Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 9:22 PM
|To: DENG Xiaohong ESP/PEK
|Cc: raj...@cisco.com; despres.r...@laposte.net; softwires@ietf.org
|Subject: Re: [Softwires] Clarification of the
|stateles/stateful
Nejc,
Good table indeed.
If you could add few more service related impact due to other features such as
UPNP inside home, DPI in the network, L4 QoS in the network, L4-aware routing
etc., then it would be quite insightful. I may also help you with that.
Cheers,
Rajiv
-Original
Can you propose a list of all 'other features' you have in mind that might
impact all operators?
On 8/12/11 9:27 AM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) raj...@cisco.com wrote:
Keeping it clean and focused would yield minimal benefit if the operators
can't relate to the impact on their services and
Hi Alain,
Can we assume that this meeting will not happen as I see no formal
announcement?
Regards,
Behcet
Following-up on the Quebec meeting, we would like to organize an interim
meeting
end of September.
We will focus on so-called stateless solutions and other remaining business
