[ipv6-wg] New version (or followup) of RIPE-501 document...

On 18 Jun 2011, at 19:11, Ole Troan wrote:

> Jan,
> 
>>> My personal preference is variant 2. Less text is good I think.
>> 
>> Agree to some extent...
>> 
>> What does one RFC means to procurement people and how they check if CPE fits the requirements? In this case procurement guy needs to interpret all requirements from one RFC instead of the given list.
>> 
>> still not sure...
> 
> RFC6104 _is_ just that; a device profile to be used for procurement.

Actually, RFC6104 is something I know well, and it's not that.  I think you mean RFC 6204 ;)

I agree with Ole that replication is unnecessary.  But if the RIPE community has differences to that list, it should state them.  I don't think that 'weakens' 501-bis, rather it shows the operator community has genuine needs that differ from this and it would be prudent of vendors to take note of those needs.  Note also that a very good reason for differences is that an 'advanced' CPE draft is in progress (draft-wbeebee-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-bis-04) which will have additional requirements, so perhaps 501-bis needs to decide if its idea of a CPE is that of 6204, or whether some things in the advanced draft need to be captured in 501-bis (which it seems they do).

I think load balancers should be included; I know some universities who did not take part in W6D not because their web servers couldn't be made v6 ready, but because their load balancers could not.

Some comments; I've not read the new text in detail (yet).

Switches:
- add RA-Guard (RFC 6105 I think)

Routers:
- what about multicast routing?  Searching on multicast in the text only seems to produce MLDv2 (which imo is a mandatory everywhere).
- Embedded-RP is a must for multicast routing

Firewalls:
- surprised SeND is optional
- if we're adding mobile nodes, we need the vendor and admin firewall drafts?  But draft-ietf-mext-firewall-vendor-04 and draft-ietf-mext-firewall-admin-04 would definitely be optional unless you must have MIPv6 running


Tim