Re: Comments on IPv6 Prefix Subdelegation

To: "Azinger, Marla" <marla.azinger at frontiercorp.com>
Subject: Re: Comments on IPv6 Prefix Subdelegation
From: Fred Baker <fred at cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 11:59:06 +0200
Authentication-results: ams-dkim-2; header.From=fred at cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/amsdkim2001 verified; );
Cc: "draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router at tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router at tools.ietf.org>, "draft-donley-ipv6-cpe-rtr-use-cases-and-reqs at tools.ietf.org" <draft-donley-ipv6-cpe-rtr-use-cases-and-reqs at tools.ietf.org>, IETF IPv6 Mailing List <ipv6 at ietf.org>
Delivered-to: ipv6 at core3.amsl.com
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=398; t=1248775145; x=1249639145; c=relaxed/simple; s=amsdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fred at cisco.com; z=From:=20Fred=20Baker=20<fred at cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20Comments=20on=20IPv6=20Prefix=20Subdele gation |Sender:=20; bh=voU1kY0vVxL4xWMHOPMRy6zuUkY5YSk1xZsnwlaro9Y=; b=EK9cOWpIq1YrFlhbRyXUOMB+TaSEgQD2CaoH0NHLl3Jync8CwdTCk77DyB KPmGQsvWYy3ivtZzrRO+V7DmIN9zJkB88CnO08/tUF1GVPTdxvi90TcJQ+0u fSweY0AwRx;
In-reply-to: <2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F10485093E811 at ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>
List-archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6>
List-help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <6C2F751B-119F-41D6-878C-C4CFBD57DF14 at cisco.com> <2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F10485093E811 at ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>

On Jul 28, 2009, at 11:39 AM, Azinger, Marla wrote:

2. I have concern regarding the suggestions in section 2.3 Am Iinterpreting this correctly that you are suggesting upstreams doOSPF over VPN with residential customers?


within their homes?

No, I am suggesting that in a home that has more than one router, onemight want an IGP, just like one does in other places.

Follow-Ups:
- RE: Comments on IPv6 Prefix Subdelegation
  - From: Azinger, Marla

References:
- Comments on IPv6 Prefix Subdelegation
  - From: Fred Baker
- RE: Comments on IPv6 Prefix Subdelegation
  - From: Azinger, Marla

Prev by Date: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-baker-ipv6-nd-session-hijack-00
Next by Date: Re: UDP zero checksums and v4 to v6 translators
Previous by thread: RE: Comments on IPv6 Prefix Subdelegation
Next by thread: RE: Comments on IPv6 Prefix Subdelegation
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Re: Comments on IPv6 Prefix Subdelegation

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.