[ipv6-wg] "Requirements For IPv6 in ICT Equipment" comment
Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve) gvandeve at cisco.com
Mon Jan 10 10:58:48 CET 2011
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"
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]