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

<>start snip<>
A certain platform we have now in a campus setting does IPv6 flow
exports, but only over IPv4 transport.    By having a good set of
recommendations for tenders we can hope that vendors improve that
support, and adjust their roadmaps accordingly.
<>end snip<>

And as result drop those other features you desire to have? Resources
are limited, even for a technology as IPv6.

I can only applaud the work that Jan and team has done with RIPE-501. It
is a good initiative and will help people 
get the best bang for their bucks within Europe. (and yes... it makes
live a vendor slightly harder and in some 
way easier as it helps us prioritize. The recommendations in there are
already quite in sync with other certifications 
for targeted 'very very' big vendor customers of vendors, so it is no
surprise). What we (me and Cisco) have been seeing is users 
confused and ask for everything of RIPE-501, and that is an important
reality check.

What I would like to see in addition to the current RIPE-501, and I have
been discussing this thought process with Jan already 1-2-1
is to make the document slightly larger, and add focus for common user
scenario's... like NREN, University, small enterprise, medium 
enterprise and big enterprise, and then also for ISP tier-1 -2 -3 ... I
am not sure he is convinced, however I hope he is :-)

and yes, just as Eric mentioned suggested I am taking my affiliation
into account and at the same time try to work with the 
pragmatism of reality.

G/



-----Original Message-----
From: ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf
Of Tim Chown
Sent: woensdag 5 januari 2011 14:51
To: ipv6-wg at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] "Requirements For IPv6 in ICT Equipment" comment


On 5 Jan 2011, at 12:18, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote:
> 
> 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.

Well, as the document appears (to me) to be guidance for tender
documents for large enterprises, then requesting flow exports for
router/layer 3 equipment is reasonable.   Were it a set of requirements
for  SOHO CPE, then it wouldn't be.  

A certain platform we have now in a campus setting does IPv6 flow
exports, but only over IPv4 transport.    By having a good set of
recommendations for tenders we can hope that vendors improve that
support, and adjust their roadmaps accordingly.

Tim