<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style></style></head><body lang=ES link=blue vlink=purple style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Hi Tim,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>I understand that even if in the IETF we decide not to go for that, as we know that the participation in IETF from operators is not as good as we wish, we as a different community can have a totally different perspective.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>If we don’t want to have full support of the RFC8585, at least we must mandate the 464XLAT section. The reason is clear: it is the only possible way in mobile, and if you want to support “hybrid CPEs” (those that provide for example a GPON WAN or Ethernet WAN + USB dongle for 3-5G) the easier way is to provide 464XLAT. It is also a matter of subscriber numbers in one technology vs all the others together.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Jordi<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>@jordipalet<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>El 24/11/21 18:26, "ipv6-wg en nombre de Timothy Winters" <<a href="mailto:ipv6-wg-bounces@ripe.net">ipv6-wg-bounces@ripe.net</a> en nombre de <a href="mailto:tim@qacafe.com">tim@qacafe.com</a>> escribió:<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>Hi Jordi,<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>I see you also brought up on the v6ops list. Let's see what the operator community has to say about this topic.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>I'm not opposed to changing this, but I'm also aware that's CPEs rarely support all the mechanisms listed in that RFC.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>~Tim<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 11:58 AM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ipv6-wg <<a href="mailto:ipv6-wg@ripe.net" target="_blank">ipv6-wg@ripe.net</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm'><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>Hi Tim, all,<br><br>I've reviewed the latest version of the document and in general I agree. However, today is unacceptable that a CPE doesn't support IPv6-only + IPv4aaS, so RFC8585 must be a must in this type of document.<br><br>I think there must be a clear statement on that.<br><br>Regards,<br>Jordi<br>@jordipalet<br><br><br><br><br>**********************************************<br>IPv4 is over<br>Are you ready for the new Internet ?<br><a href="http://www.theipv6company.com" target="_blank">http://www.theipv6company.com</a><br>The IPv6 Company<br><br>This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.<br><br><br><br><br>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: <a href="https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-wg" target="_blank">https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-wg</a><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-wg <o:p></o:p></p></div><br>**********************************************<br> IPv4 is over<br> Are you ready for the new Internet ?<br> http://www.theipv6company.com<br> The IPv6 Company<br> <br> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.<br> <br> </body></html>