> On 2 dec 2007, at 14:34, Richard Pruss wrote: > > > Alper, I am sorry that you are not getting this but I > believe that > > adding software to PC's are specifically out of scope. > Any SP who > > has deployed something like PPPoE clients onto an > end-users PC have > > an allergic reaction to adding things to customer PC's. > > From reading the stuff posted to this list I don't believe > this to be > out of scope.
=> I agree. In fact this is done. My ISP required this, specifically for user authentication. Of course this can also be done on the CPE. Hesham > > What I'm afraid of is a solution that is very hard or impossible to > deploy on common operating systems without the help from > their vendor > so a CPE device is always necessary. The problem with that is that > with IPv4, customers typically only get a single address (I > don't see > a way for DHCP to provide multiple) so that this CPE must implement > NAT functionality. NAT is never good, but there's a big difference > between a reasonable NAT and a bad one. So it's extremely important > for users to have a choice here. If service providers give > customers > CPEs that integrate the modem and NAT functions this means > consumers > are no longer in charge of their own destiny in this regard. > > > _______________________________________________ > Int-area mailing list > [email protected] > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area > _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
