[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Another requirement [Re: New (-02) version of IPv6 CPE Router draft is available for review]
- To: Antonio Querubin <tony@lava.net>
- Subject: Re: Another requirement [Re: New (-02) version of IPv6 CPE Router draft is available for review]
- From: Francois-Xavier Le Bail <fx.lebail@yahoo.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:57:52 -0700 (PDT)
- Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Message-ID; b=d3stZMNqHZvLK6vTXFZky2aF5cBXYRBCwK/GJsL62BwDcsNzrgmhbS/3B619VfmgJ3zzJ1z1acaoXfeDy1D77YtoxJSDnAHVOw2kTFBRatH7Odd++eMQcrHoyxqw/m90YGjZRQvfKuRw8t/ITKyOXAXHQyFdoxUS1SoU8n1upRc=;
--- On Thu, 7/31/08, Antonio Querubin <tony@lava.net> wrote:
> > On Thu, 31 Jul 2008, Francois-Xavier Le Bail wrote:
> >> Another requirement:
> >> The CPE should install a discard (null) or
> >> unreachable route for the delegated prefix.
> The choice to reply with an
> unreachable or just silently discard for unused
> subnets/addresses within
> delegated prefix should be a vendor option though.
Or setup option ?
Or managed by the ISP ?
Francois-Xavier