[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: WPD-6, WAA-8, and WAA-9 of draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-04

To: "Philip Homburg" <pch-v6ops@u-1.phicoh.com>, "Ole Troan" <ot@cisco.com>
Subject: RE: WPD-6, WAA-8, and WAA-9 of draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-04
From: "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" <wbeebee@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2010 16:01:02 -0500
Cc: <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <m1NytI9-0001dpC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
References: <m1NyrHU-0001bZC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <9699A364-5C24-4672-B525-E1E57E3B0A54@cisco.com> <m1NytI9-0001dpC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>

> I prefer to avoid unnumbered links. 

Unnumbered links are a deployment scenario that is highly desirable from
some operators who wish to administratively separate the link between
the SP and the CPE and the home...  They are also, in some cases, more
easily administrated from an addressing prespective than numbered links.

Your proposal would deny the SP the ability to administer their network
the way they want to.

- Wes

Follow-Ups:
- Re: WPD-6, WAA-8, and WAA-9 of draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-04
  - From: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops@u-1.phicoh.com>

References:
- Re: FW: WPD-6, WAA-8, and WAA-9 of draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-04
  - From: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops@u-1.phicoh.com>
- Re: WPD-6, WAA-8, and WAA-9 of draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-04
  - From: Ole Troan <ot@cisco.com>
- Re: WPD-6, WAA-8, and WAA-9 of draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-04
  - From: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops@u-1.phicoh.com>

Prev by Date: Re: WPD-6, WAA-8, and WAA-9 of draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-04
Next by Date: Re: WPD-6, WAA-8, and WAA-9 of draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-04
Previous by thread: Re: WPD-6, WAA-8, and WAA-9 of draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-04
Next by thread: Re: WPD-6, WAA-8, and WAA-9 of draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-04
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread