On Sun, 27 May 2007, william(at)elan.net wrote: > > On Sun, 27 May 2007, Chris L. Morrow wrote: > > >> So, I think I can sum up your reply by saying that your suggestion is > >> to provide a lesser service than we do now (v4 NAT, proxies, etc. > >> sound to me like lesser service), during the transition period. > > > > I think you also missed the suggestion that sending out CPE with DD-wrt > > was a 'good idea'. Honestly DD-wrt/open-wrt are nice solutions for testing > > or for people willing to fiddle, they are not a good solution for > > 'grandma'. > > My parents and brother both have linksys with dd-wrt that I put up. > I don't maintain it at all and it "just works". No, they are not using > v6, but if it was available I don't anticipate any problems as their > system os at home all support it now. excellent, so 3 out of 6 billion can work fine.. mass-supportability/deplyability that is not.
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Chris L. Morrow
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Jared Mauch
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Nathan Ward
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Jeroen Massar
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Nathan Ward
- Moving to IPv6 (Was: NANOG 40 agenda posted) Jeroen Massar
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Chris L. Morrow
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted william(at)elan.net
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted william(at)elan.net
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Chris L. Morrow
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Manolo Hernandez
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Chris L. Morrow
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Manolo Hernandez
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted John Curran
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Donald Stahl
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Alexander Harrowell