Hello Rajiv,
is there any relation between your draft and
draft-ietf-dhc-addr-registration-00?
Thanks
Regards,
Roberta
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Rajiv
Asati (rajiva)
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 6:27 PM
To: Philipp K
d probably already support
DHCPv6, and not directly from the end hosts.
Thanks
Regards,
Roberta
-Original Message-
From: mohamed.boucad...@orange-ftgroup.com
[mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange-ftgroup.com]
Sent: giovedì 14 ottobre 2010 14.18
To: Maglione Roberta; ipv6@ietf.org
Cc: U
Hello Med,
I have a question about the deployment scenario you have in mind for this
draft.
In the document you say: "A service provider may want to deploy DS-lite without
using DHCP.", but it is not completely clear to me what is the SLAAC only
scenario you are referring to.
I'm thinking a
-Original Message-
From: Mikael Abrahamsson [mailto:swm...@swm.pp.se]
Sent: venerdì 10 settembre 2010 12.10
To: Maglione Roberta
Cc: Mark Smith; ipv6@ietf.org; Fred Baker
Subject: RE: New version available
On Fri, 10 Sep 2010, Maglione Roberta wrote:
>> PPP is not used here. The
> PPP is not used here. There are numerous different deployment models, PPP
> is an expensive one that should be avoided unless there is serious use for
> it.
While it is true that PPP is not used here, I won't say that PPP should be
avoided.
PPP is a valid and widely deployed model in DSL Broadb
