RE: Usage model and scenarios

["Benoit Lourdelet (blourdel)" <blourdel@cisco.com>]

If we restrict ourselves to the SP deployment "uplink-IPv6-address"
seems then the right term as already proposed. Letting aside the
loopback numbering problem.

I had in mind to extend a bit the field of applications and account for
Enterprise deployment on LAN where "uplink" is not a familiar term.

Benoit

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Townsley (townsley) 
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 5:35 PM
To: 'Maglione Roberta'; 'Bernard Aboba'
Cc: 'david.miles@alcatel-lucent.com.au'; 'sarikaya@ieee.org';
'radiusext@ops.ietf.org'; 'David B. Nelson'; 'ot@cisco.com'; Benoit
Lourdelet (blourdel)
Subject: RE: Usage model and scenarios


I can imagine the desire to have an ipv6 address on the wan link itself,
as well as one not associated with the physical interface, but a
"loopback" on the RG. If this is the former, I think it should be
labeled as such. Whether we need the latter is perhaps another
discussion. (in ipv4 of course we didn't have these luxuries of
assigning addresses to everything that might be addressable. Doesn't
mean ipv6 will evolve in the same manner.)




Sent from my mobile.

--
to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>