Re: [v6ops] do we need to update RFC7084 ? - Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers

Hello,

RFC 7084 (and 6204 before that) was used by us (ISPs) to push vendors to 
implement IPv6 deployment-related features. Before that, every ISP would 
write down their own specs, with various degrees of success. So, 7084 
was and still is a very good thing!

Now, as an ISP deploying (not thinking about, actually deploying as we 
speak) lw4o6 to potentially 1.5M users, I'd really prefer if 7084 
included lw4o6/MAP etc, not so much for my ISP, but for others that are 
still considering their options. I really see no reason whatsoever, for 
not updating 7084 (and also keeping existing transition technologies in 
place). BTW, lw4o6 support is mandatory in our CPE tenders (and so it is 
for the rest of DT group AFAIK)

cheers,

Yannis

On 11/04/2016 09:09 PM, STARK, BARBARA H wrote:
>>      When this document was published, the IPv4 situation was different that
>> the actual one.
>>
>>      Many ISPs could have deployed IPv6 using dual stack, or 6rd.
>>
>>      Also, lw6over4 was not available, same as other protocols such as MAP, or
>> 464XLAT, or there was no sufficient experience with them.
>>
>>      Now the situation is totally different, and ISPs will need to provide IPv6
>> service-only in the access link, instead of 6in4 based mechanisms, unless they
>> opt for dual-stack with CGN.
>>
>>      So my question is: should this document be updated to reflect the new
>> situation, so to provide a better guidance to both the ISPs and the vendors?
> RFC 7084 was never intended as advice to ISPs. It was intended as advice from ISPs to vendors of retail CE Routers. Along the lines of:
> Given IPv6 access network architectures ISPs have documented in CableLabs and Broadband Forum (BBF), here is a set of common requirements for a retail CE Router that can be used to connect to either of those types of access networks.
>
> If there is more than one ISP who is seriously committed to deploying one of the technologies you list (not just studying or thinking about it), and they want to extend RFC 7084, they should come forward. But I don't think it should be extended for any technology that doesn't have a real deployment commitment from multiple providers. I was very disappointed that some European ISPs pushed really hard to get DS Lite documented in BBF and RFC 7084, and then did nothing with that technology. CE Router vendors should not be asked to expend their scarce resources in support of experimental technologies. Experiments can be done with OpenWRT types of firmware. RFC 7084 extension needs to be done only for widely deployed technologies.
>
> BTW, we also stayed away from 3GPP access architectures, because there was no participation from 3GPP ISPs. The ISPs doing widespread deployment must be involved in providing the advice.
> Barbara
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops