Am 26.10.2020 um 16:34 schrieb Eric van Uden via iot-wg <iot-wg@ripe.net>:

Hi Eliot,

I have to confess, at the moment I have no experience with TR369. I am glad that I understand TR69 a little. ;-) What I do know about TR369 is that it is a good basis to keep a better eye on things in the future and to make decisions based on the information from the CPE.


Best regards,

Eric van Uden

AVM ICT GmbH
Country Manager Netherlands
Mr. van Coothlaan 10
6602 GT Wijchen
Nederland
Phone +31 24 6485381
Mobile +31 622 948356
e.vanuden@avm.de

Bezoek onze website op http://nl.avm.de/   , vind ons leuk op Facebook of bekijk onze Google +-pagina en Youtube-kanaal.

AVM GmbH for International Communication Technology, Alt-Moabit 95, 10559 Berlin, Germany
HRB 48220 AG Charlottenburg, CEO (Geschäftsführer): Johannes Nill



Von:        "Eliot Lear" <lear@lear.ch>
An:        e.vanuden@avm.de
Kopie:        iot-wg@ripe.net
Datum:        26-10-2020 16:08
Betreff:        Re: [iot-wg] IoT BCOP TF Document - Call for comments

---

Hi Eric,
On 26.10.20 14:33, Eric van Uden via iot-wg wrote:
Hi Eliot,

I´m refering to the Stacked Router concept, so one CPE instead of two (stacked) In this case, the CPE

Thanks.  It is better for a single provider to interface with the user.  Stacked CPE should certainly not be required, but nor should it be prohibited.  If I don't like the pizza box my provider gives me, I might want to put something in front of it.  In that case, the maker of that something might take responsibility for communicating with me about what is going on in my network.  This has an impact as to whether or not everything can be done in, say, TR.369.
Does this make sense?
Eliot




_______________________________________________
iot-wg mailing list
iot-wg@ripe.net
https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/iot-wg