IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Liaison from BBF

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Mon, 09 November 2009 17:39 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
X-Original-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0609728C175 for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 09:39:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H-6o0Gn1kzhT for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 09:39:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 265E228C0DD for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 09:39:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 756CC9E; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 18:39:37 +0100 (CET)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74BE89A for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 18:39:37 +0100 (CET)
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:39:37 +0100
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: Liaison from BBF
In-Reply-To: <B0147C3DD45E42478038FC347CCB65FE16EDA1DD@XCH-MW-08V.mw.nos.boeing.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0911091833170.22728@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD4DEDE9BC10@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.e ricsson.se><200911091500.nA9F0PSm002116@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <alpine.DEB.1.10.0911091623150.22728@uplift.swm.pp.se><B0147C3DD45E42478038 FC347CCB65FE16EDA143@XCH-MW-08V.mw.nos.boeing.com> <alpine.DEB.1.10.0911091739460.22728@uplift.swm.pp.se> <B0147C3DD45E42478038FC347CCB65FE16EDA1DD@XCH-MW-08V.mw.nos.boeing.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (DEB 962 2008-03-14)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:39:13 -0000

On Mon, 9 Nov 2009, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:

> Does not the ISP control, own, and distribute the "residential gateway"?

Not in my market anyway (some have this service of course, but it's 
definitely not mandatory).

> Why would ISP not own and control the residential gateway?

Because it's cheaper to have the customer walk into their electronics 
store and buy any CPE they fancy, than to have the ISP handle it. It also 
gives customers more choice. In some markets, people like to have the 
choice between ISP provided CPE and one they run themselves.

> We received our ADSL "modem" in the mail, from Verizon. It is a NAT, and 
> the WAN side is under their control entirely. Is this not standard 
> practice among ISPs?

As far as I can discern, it's standard in the US but not in the rest of 
the world. Generally, the more competition in the market, the less likely 
it is that the ISP provides the end user CPE. If customers switch ISPs 
every year or so, they want to be able to re-use their CPE.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email