Pretty close to as many as support 3825 I'd expect. The point of an "L7 LCP" is that it doesn't require changes to the CPE, amongst other things. So your agenda is to make carriers buy new residential routers for everyone in the world? And you think that's a reasonable requirement? I guess that could make sense... considering the source. I think that broadband carriers in any given national jurisdiction could introduce a functional L7 LCP service in less than twelve months. They'd need to do pretty much what they need to do for DHCP except change all their subscribers' CPE - and do all the interop with multiple vendors of residential CPE. Cheers, Martin -----Original Message----- From: James M. Polk [mailto:jmpolk@xxxxxxxxx] Sent: Friday, 20 April 2007 7:43 AM To: Dawson, Martin; John Schnizlein; Andrew Newton Cc: GEOPRIV WG; Allison Mankin; ietf@xxxxxxxx Subject: RE: [Geopriv] Confirmation of GEOPRIV IETF 68 Working Group Hums Martin Exactly what products support HELD right now? If you want location verification and location signing - are these deployed today? Doesn't all these mean something has to be changed or upgraded? Broadband providers in the US have given away FREE home routers to enable a service as recently as a year ago. So, taking the stance that this won't happen is looking facts to the contrary in the eye and saying "that didn't happen" *or* "that's not going to happen".... At 04:34 PM 4/19/2007, Dawson, Martin wrote: >Does DHCP require a change to the residential CPE James? How long is it >going to take to change every residential router in the world? Do you >think it is an unreasonable requirement to not have to do this? > >You can't just object to HELD on the basis that you think it's been >misrepresented. I don't accept that it has - but in any case, it's not a >technical rationale. > >Cheers, >Martin > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: James M. Polk [mailto:jmpolk@xxxxxxxxx] >Sent: Friday, 20 April 2007 7:31 AM >To: Dawson, Martin; John Schnizlein; Andrew Newton >Cc: GEOPRIV WG; Allison Mankin; ietf@xxxxxxxx >Subject: RE: [Geopriv] Confirmation of GEOPRIV IETF 68 Working Group >Hums > >At 04:20 PM 4/19/2007, Dawson, Martin wrote: > >"DHCP is not adequate because it doesn't meet multiple sets of > >requirements as documented multiple times ..." > >bologna > >"documented multiple times" means in individual submissions > >of which, zero facts were presented to substantiate > >If DHCP were so inadequate, why is the DSL forum now going to specify >it? Why does PacketCable define it? These were fairly recent moves... > >And, how many times has HELD been presented as if it were a product >of an IETF WG? > >James > > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- >This message is for the designated recipient only and may >contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. >If you have received it in error, please notify the sender >immediately and delete the original. Any unauthorized use of >this email is prohibited. >----------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- >[mf2] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any unauthorized use of this email is prohibited. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [mf2] _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf