[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Call for v6ops agenda items
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 06:06:29 -0800
Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 6:00 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> wrote:
> > On Tue, 16 Feb 2010, Cameron Byrne wrote:
> >
> >> Instead of answering these questions, tell me what is so wrong with giving
> >> a mobile user (cell phone! security camera, electricity meter ...) a /112 or
> >> something similar? Why is it so important that the 3GPP specs REQUIRE a
> >> /64, and consequently the vendors don't support anything else? Really, GGSN
> >> vendors only support /64 ....
> >
> > I also work for a cellular provider/ISP, but I guess I can combine that with
> > being an "ipv6 zealot".
>
> :)
>
I don't think you should be smiling. Calling people names who disagree
with your opinion will make them less likely to be interesting
in listening to it.
>
> >
> > Yes, I do agree that requiring a /64 per bearer/PDP is suboptimal, there
> > should be a choice. I still don't think it's a waste of space, but I can
> > agree that allowing for a few different subnet sizes would make sense.
> >
>
> Teemu,
>
> That means there are 2 of us now. Does that make it relevant
> conversation? Keep in mind, if it is hard coded in ipv6 in 2010 make
> a big difference from being hard coded in 2012. Lets fix it now in
> the standards, otherwise an enterprising GGSN manufacturer will add it
> as a knob and customers will buy it and use it.
>
> Cameron
>
> > --
> > Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
> >
>