Hi,
On Fri, Jan 08, 2010 at 03:11:46PM +0100, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> Absolutely, but I don't think it's acceptable to have a CPE that only
> supports IPv6 PPPoE, and doesn't support it natively. This is what I read
> the original text to want, and I'm fine with that. I'm disagreeing with
> any text that implies that native IPv6 support is optional.
Well, what's "native" in a CPE that has a built-in DSL modem which only
supports PPPoE encapsulation...?
What I want to see is "if it can do encapsulation X (at all), it should
be able to do PPP-over-X, as per RFC [Z]".
I do not see strong need to mandate "it must do encapsulation A, B and C",
because the target customer base might not have or want "A" and "C"...
Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
--
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 144438
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Attachment:
pgpzTM5ixJUE9.pgp
Description: PGP signature