<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><div><div style="font-family: -webkit-standard;">The IETF v6ops working group is chartered to improve the operation of IPv6. We have several active documents right now that would benefit from broader operator feedback. For instance, there is current active discussion on:</div><div style="font-family: -webkit-standard;"><br></div><div style="font-family: -webkit-standard;"></div><div style="font-family: -webkit-standard;"></div><div style="font-family: -webkit-standard;">Requirements for IPv6 Routers <<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6rtr-reqs">https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6rtr-reqs</a>></div><div style="font-family: -webkit-standard;">This document provides a list of requirements for operators’ routers. Is it clear and exhaustive?</div><div style="font-family: -webkit-standard;"><br></div><div style="font-family: -webkit-standard;"></div><div style="font-family: -webkit-standard;">Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers <<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc7084-bis">https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc7084-bis</a>></div><div style="font-family: -webkit-standard;">What transition technologies should all CPE vendors put in their devices? The current version proposes all of: 464xlat, DS-Lite, lw4o6, MAP-E, MAP-T, 6in4, and 6rd, as well as IPv4 multicast over IPv6.</div><div style="font-family: -webkit-standard;">There are related documents that split out some requirements for further discussion.</div><div style="font-family: -webkit-standard;"><br></div><div style="font-family: -webkit-standard;"></div><div style="font-family: -webkit-standard;">Happy Eyeballs Version 2: Better Connectivity Using Concurrency <<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc6555bis">https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc6555bis</a>></div><div style="font-family: -webkit-standard;"></div><div style="font-family: -webkit-standard;">Is this a useful update to the existing Happy Eyeballs specification (rfc6555)? Should we update Happy Eyeballs?</div><div style="font-family: -webkit-standard;"></div><div style="font-family: -webkit-standard;"> </div><div style="font-family: -webkit-standard;">Considerations For Using Unique Local Addresses <<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-considerations">https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-considerations</a>></div><div style="font-family: -webkit-standard;">Are ULAs useful, or are they a natural and risky predecessor to IPv6 NAT?</div><div style="font-family: -webkit-standard;"><br></div><div style="font-family: -webkit-standard;"><br></div><div style="font-family: -webkit-standard;"></div><div style="font-family: -webkit-standard;"></div><div style="font-family: -webkit-standard;"></div><div style="font-family: -webkit-standard;">It would help future IPv6 operations if current operators would read these documents and comment on them on the mailing list:</div><div style="font-family: -webkit-standard;"><a href="https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops</a></div><div style="font-family: -webkit-standard;">Note Well that comments become part of the IETF record, and thank you for them.</div><div style="font-family: -webkit-standard;"><br></div><div style="font-family: -webkit-standard;"><br></div><div style="font-family: -webkit-standard;"></div><div style="font-family: -webkit-standard;">Lee</div><div style="font-family: -webkit-standard;">v6ops co-chair</div></div></body></html>