On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 09:59:03 +1300, Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 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.
No, I cannot. First, if my competitor just "works" silently using NAPT66, _my_ product will be blamed for the problem, and I have better not print an error message either. Second, if I sell my product (subsidized) through the network operator, it is unlikely that said operator will allow said product to blame its network. This is quite common for "mobile" devices. Third, the product might not even be able to print the error message, if it has no screen, for instance a home router. This is quite common for broadband fixed access. Unless the RIR mandate a minimum delegated prefix size in adequate scenarios, we may have a big problem. -- Rémi Denis-Courmont -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
