[ipv6-wg] "Requirements For IPv6 in ICT Equipment" comment
Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve) gvandeve at cisco.com
Mon Jan 10 10:53:11 CET 2011
Keep in mind that the document Ivan kindly proposed is still work in process... and that the last has not been mentioned about it. It is a good initial reference for this point in time, but to 'formaly' reference to it would result in a moving target I fear. G/ -----Original Message----- From: ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Ivan Pepelnjak Sent: zondag 9 januari 2011 13:54 To: 'Jan Zorz @ go6.si'; 'Ahmed Abu-Abed'; 'RIPE IPv6' Subject: RE: [ipv6-wg] "Requirements For IPv6 in ICT Equipment" comment It's probably best to start from the existing "Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers" draft. You might also want to check whether a CPE-focused RIPE document wouldn't reinvent the wheel. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-09 Ivan > -----Original Message----- > From: ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of > Jan Zorz @ go6.si > Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2011 1:30 PM > To: Ahmed Abu-Abed; RIPE IPv6 > Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] "Requirements For IPv6 in ICT Equipment" comment > > > ----- Original message ----- > > My suggestion was to develop a best practice for consumer CPE > > specifications based on existing IETF standards/drafts. > > > > Regards, > > -Ahmed > > > > Hi, > > Thank you for suggestion. Mandatory part should not be a big challenge, > but optional section might be tricky... > > We'll try to compile first beta draft text for the CPE and see if > community likes it and what we need to change/add. > > best, Jan Zorz > > > > > > > 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"
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]