<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7652.24">
<TITLE>RE: Ipv6 Routing (from hell)</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>/me waves from PPPoA land as well<BR>
<BR>
yes, IPCP + IP6CP should do fine, the choice to do IPoE / IP6oE is really nothing to do with IPv6<BR>
in this context and more to do with general architecture.<BR>
<BR>
Dave.<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------------------------<BR>
David Freedman<BR>
Group Network Engineering<BR>
Claranet Limited<BR>
<A HREF="http://www.clara.net">http://www.clara.net</A><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: ipv6-ops-bounces+david.freedman=uk.clara.net@lists.cluenet.de on behalf of Gert Doering<BR>
Sent: Fri 3/28/2008 12:43<BR>
To: Michael Taht<BR>
Cc: Steve Bertrand; ipv6-ops@lists.cluenet.de<BR>
Subject: Re: Ipv6 Routing (from hell)<BR>
<BR>
Hi,<BR>
<BR>
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 11:48:59AM +1030, Michael Taht wrote:<BR>
> I'd be very interested to know what technologies are used in Europe to<BR>
> bring IPv6 to the doorstep. It sounds like ADSL2 is not presently the<BR>
> right path from a CPE and DSLAM perspective.<BR>
<BR>
ADSL, when used with PPPoE (which is frequently done in Europe) works<BR>
fine for IPv4+IPv6 over the same or separate PPPoE session(s).<BR>
<BR>
Gert Doering<BR>
-- NetMaster<BR>
--<BR>
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 110584<BR>
<BR>
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard<BR>
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann<BR>
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)<BR>
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279<BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>