RE: comparaison grids presented in meeting

["Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>]

Hi Pekka:

I was not too surprised after your reaction on the ML that you did not
include Doors in that comparison grid. Not that I found that only fair,
but I agree that IP is a pain when it comes to standards. In the other
hand it's more and more the normal life of companies these days and
we'll have to cope with this one way or another.

Anyway I can try and see with the lawyers about the terms for that one,
if there's at least a little chance to raise interest on standardizing
Doors. 

I understand that you think the same about Nemo since it's also
encumbered. On the other hand, ISPs I met with were quite interested in
the concept of using Nemo to deploy managed IPv6 networks such as Home
and SOHO. The key is that when you have subscribers by the million(s),
you'd prefer not renumber them when they move, be it every 10 years.
Also, there's the concept of the preconfigured branch office network
that can be tested by IT and deployed as is using Nemo.

So Nemo could actually help a lot in making IPv6 networks pervasive, and
a feature like doors in that context is quite compelling to make it
deployable today. So yes, I get positive feedback from early
experimentations on Japan, the US and Europe. And yes, we are pretty
serious about that feature. Anything we could do to move forward or will
you just drop it flat?

Pascal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Pekka Savola
> Sent: jeudi 4 mars 2004 17:35
> To: Florent Parent
> Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: comparaison grids presented in meeting
> 
> On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Florent Parent wrote:
> > I presume you will publish the grids you presented during the wg
meeting so
> > people on the list will be able to comment on them?
> 
> Certainly.  Might take a couple of days...
> 
>