IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] draft-herbst-v6ops-cpeenhancements-00

Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> Mon, 08 November 2010 10:05 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7C7E3A6970 for <v6ops@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 02:05:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.317
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.317 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.282, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 PzsT2LpzH3BZ for <v6ops@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 02:05:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com (rtp-iport-1.cisco.com [64.102.122.148]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 100CF3A688D for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 02:05:57 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: rtp-iport-1.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.58,313,1286150400"; d="scan'208,217"; a="179428483"
Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 Nov 2010 10:06:17 +0000
Received: from dhcp-77e6.meeting.ietf.org (tky-vpn-client-230-47.cisco.com [10.70.230.47]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oA8A6Cnx019352; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 10:06:14 GMT
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by dhcp-77e6.meeting.ietf.org (PGP Universal service); Mon, 08 Nov 2010 18:06:16 +0900
X-PGP-Universal: processed; by dhcp-77e6.meeting.ietf.org on Mon, 08 Nov 2010 18:06:16 +0900
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <907595.71531.qm@web81403.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 18:06:02 +0800
Message-Id: <CCF71A90-9944-49C2-A8E2-E0A68071B740@cisco.com>
References: <AF742F21C1FCEE4DAB7F4842ABDC511C031E78B1@XMB-RCD-114.cisco.com> <907595.71531.qm@web81403.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
To: Don Sturek <d.sturek@att.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-15--481566284"
Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-herbst-v6ops-cpeenhancements-00
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 10:05:58 -0000

On Nov 8, 2010, at 1:29 PM, Don Sturek wrote:

> On your point on the 40% of the deployments without broadband, we need to support the ability for those customers to add broadband later and to deploy smart energy devices on other links.  Therefore, the use case needs to be considered.

and if 40% don't have it, 60% do. We should not consider them as a use case? Please.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email