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

I agree on this with Marco... A vendor would like to have centralization
of certification 
requirements for operational cost and time investment effectiveness.

Just imagine the potential effect... one certification for RIPE, one for
ARIN, one for APNIC, etc... and then for the BBand forum, and for the v6
logo... 
Then another for governments etc...

What is in current RIPE-501 is nice as it piggy-backs upon certification
existing already which has attention of vendors already

G/


-----Original Message-----
From: ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf
Of Marco Hogewoning
Sent: zondag 9 januari 2011 16:00
To: Ahmed Abu-Abed
Cc: RIPE IPv6
Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] "Requirements For IPv6 in ICT Equipment" comment

Hi Ahmed,

The IETF document I was refering to
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router) is
basically that.

If there is strong support from the community to do something similar
and turn it into a RIPE document we could look into this, but I
personally would stick with the IETF one instead of doing it all over
again and possibly ending up with minor differences.

>From personal experience I can tell it's already hard to get vendors to
follow the IETF, most CPE builders are more familiar with the broadband
forum. Having yet another 'standard' from yet another body won't help in
this. Especially when from a vendor's perspective, you have customer A
pointing to one document en customer B asking to be compliant to another
one.

Marco

On 9 jan 2011, at 13:01, Ahmed Abu-Abed wrote:

> My suggestion was to develop a best practice for consumer CPE
specifications based on existing IETF standards/drafts.
>  
> Regards,
> -Ahmed
>  
> 
> From: Marco Hogewoning
> Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2011 1:22 PM
> To: Ahmed Abu-Abed
> Cc: kzorba at otenet.gr ; ipv6-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] "Requirements For IPv6 in ICT Equipment"
comment
> 
> 
> On 9 jan 2011, at 05:40, Ahmed Abu-Abed wrote:
> 
> > Good point, and having a Consumer CPE spec as a RIPE standard would
help for last mile access requirements. RIPE-501 only aimed for
government and enterprise deployments.
> 
> My personal preference would be to keep pointing to the work done in
the IETF. The problem with standards is, there usually are too many.
Adding another one will only lead to more confusion, let alone the time
it will take to get consensus.
> 
> Grtx,
> 
> MarcoH
> 
> -- 
> "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again"