On 2008-10-31 21:09, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:31:27 +1300, Brian E Carpenter
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Well I'm not completely certain whether involving users here would
>>> provide very good experience,
>> I see your argument, but failing silently doesn't seem like a
>> good idea.
>
> It is only worse. What will actually happen then is, NAPT66.
>
>>> and certainly operators would not be happy
>>> to see vendors' devices complaining about limitations of their network:)
>> Too bad. This is actually a consumer protection issue;
>> it seems completely appropriate to require that the
>> reason for failure should be notified to the paying user.
>
> Failing silently or loudly are no options. You cannot blame the operator if
> you expect him to subsidized your device sale. You cannot fail if your
> competitor "just works" by using NAPT66.
Agreed, but you can warn the user that the ISP is offering a defective
service and that you are therefore providing a workaround. There's
no reason to let such an operator off the hook.
Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
