Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported Re: 202203261748.AYC

["Abraham Y. Chen" <aychen () avinta com>]

Hi, Randy:

1)    " ...  does not mean it is trivial to get it done on *billions* of 
device.  ... ":    It looks that your mind is focused on upgrading 
existing IoTs. They are not to be perturbed according to the initial and 
short term EzIP deployment plans, because it basically is following the 
existing CG-NAT network configuration and master / client service model. 
Many RGs (Residential / Routing Gateways) are already capable of being a 
240/4 DHCP client. (If not, commenting out one single line is likely all 
what is needed.). For the long term, it will be only those*/new/* IoTs 
desiring for end-to-end communication across RAN borders to have the 
ability of handling Option Words in the IP header.

2)    " ... Your refusal to follow simple mailing list etiquette ...  
":    Sorry for the inconvenience that I have caused. Honestly, I am 
still trying to figure out what is the "required" etiquette, since what 
I have received were mostly "complaints" not constructive "instructions" 
(i.e., how about a cheat sheet of what to do and what not to?). So, I 
have been adjusting my writing style. (My best guess of the issue is 
mostly likely due to the Subject line which according to my business 
correspondence training is my own choice. I am baffled by why does it 
cause problems on this mailing list.)

Regards,


Abe (2022-03-27 15:16)



On 2022-03-26 18:53, Randy Carpenter wrote:
> ----- On Mar 26, 2022, at 6:16 PM, Abraham Y. Chenaychen () avinta com  wrote:
>
> > Hi, Tom & Paul:
> > 1) " ... hand waved ... ": Through my line of work, I was trained to behave
> > exactly the opposite. I am surprised at you jumping to the conclusion, even
> > before challenging me about where did I get my viewpoint from. The fact is, it
> > has been clearly documented in our IETF draft for the last couple years (since
> > Rev-06 on 2019 Dec. 1)! For your convenience, please see below a copy of the
> > potential target code fragment and critique. It appears to me that our software
> > member suggested to comment out only one line (1047).
> Just because it is trivial to make the modification in a single, specific firmware for one particular device sdoes not 
> mean it is trivial to get it done on *billions* of device. Even if each one was as trivial as your example, it would 
> still be ludicrously difficult.
>
> Beyond that, I am still not understanding what you are actually trying to propose here. Your refusal to follow simple 
> mailing list etiquette even after numerous requests makes it very difficult to decipher what you are saying.
>
> -Randy



--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus