[ipv6-wg] "Requirements For IPv6 in ICT Equipment" comment

On 5.1.11 12:38, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote:
> Steve,
>
> Do not you think that this is going too far? Especially if everyone is adding
> his/her own requirements...
>
> For example, I cannot imagine a residential CPE having any kind of flow export ;-)
>
> I would prefer to have RIPE-501 focus on the bare minimum requirements in order
> to get IPv6 deployed as soon as possible: this means enough requirements to be
> deployed in a secure, interoperable and manageable way but no more as we (at
> least I) prefer to have multiple ‘compliant’ devices.

Eric, hi.

Yes, as primary author of RIPE-501 I completely agree with this statement. I was 
searching for words saying exactly same thing, well put :)

On the other hand my thinking goes into direction, that what you say needs to be 
done in "mandatory" sections of different equipment specs. I see "mandatory" 
sections as prerequisite for IPv6 to be "deployed in a secure, interoperable and 
manageable way but no more".

Optional requirements is a candy for those vendors, who did their homework or at 
least biggest part of it. If tender iniciator says "mandatory is non-debatable, 
but you get more points for optional requirements and vendor with more optional 
requirements wins and gets the business", this might be a good reason why to 
implement as much IPv6 in equipment as it can be done. I see this as 
encouragement to develop and push IPv6 deployment on the next qualitative level.

>
> Hope this helps and does not sound to vendor originated (see my affiliation)

Eric, we know who you are ;) ;)

Cheers, Jan