Re: [v6ops] Requirements for IPv6 routers in various locations

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

I’ve submitted a new version for this document.

Barbara, after thinking again for several hours on this classification, I’ve the feeling that all those cases have the same requirements as the ones in the original document. Let me explain why. Those 2 cases that need to “export services” (by means of DMZ, virtual host, port/protocol forwarding, etc.), actually will need that only for IPv4 (because the private addresses behind NAT), and this is already supported by all the devices in the market, so we don’t need to have any “new” IPv4 requirements for that.

For IPv6, well, you have GUA, so being all the addresses global, they are always reachable, right? Of course, it will be good that any IPv6 CE has a configurable firewall, and may be enabled by default, but I recall in the original document, there is already text about that, so probably we don’t want to change it.

So according to this, and responding to Fred comments on the decision about one or several documents for different scenarios, I think that leaving out special requirements for data-centers, content-providers, big enterprises, etc., the requirements for a CE “baseline” are the same in all the cases, and the differences are more related to more memory, more interfaces/types/speed, performance, etc.

So, in my opinion, this document is good for most of the residential users, SOHO, SMEs, and probably some degree of medium-to-big organizations, and may be, if we want other scenarios we can either “upgrade” this document to include them, or have other documents that state as “baseline” this document to avoid repeating text. I think the second option is close to what Tim suggested.

So, the new version is:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-palet-v6ops-rfc7084-bis/

Let me try to summarize the main changes:

1) 6rd and DS-Lite are back SHOULD as in the original document.
2) Requirements for 464XLAT, MAP-E/T, lw4o6 and 6in4 are now completed, and all them are SHOULD, same as 6rd and DS-Lite.
3) Added a section “Usage Scenarios” to clarify what I indicated above.
4) Added, as SHOULD, support for HNCP as a LAN requirement.
5) Added requirement for support of DHCPv6 S46 priority option RFC8026.
6) Added requirement for support of DHCPv4-over-DHCPv6 (DHCP4o6) transport RFC7341.

Comments?

Regards,
Jordi
 

-----Mensaje original-----
De: v6ops <[e-mail]> en nombre de JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[e-mail]>
Responder a: <[e-mail]>
Fecha: viernes, 24 de febrero de 2017, 14:32
Para: IPv6 Ops WG <[e-mail]>
Asunto: Re: [v6ops] Requirements for IPv6 routers in various locations

    Hi Barbara,
    
    Then fully agree !
    
    I think the main difference between the “2 groups” that you differentiate is that in the second group the CE needs to support the ability to either being setup as a “bridge” or be able to have a DMZ or to allow ports/protocols forwarding.
    
    Actually, I even think that 5 is part of your “first” group (so together are 1, 2, 4 and 5) and only 3 and 6 are in the second group.
    
    So, according to this, I don’t see the need to have 2 different documents, just un update of the RFC7084 (and as you said, not changing the definition of the terms neither the scope).
    
    Regards,
    Jordi
     
    
    -----Mensaje original-----
    De: "STARK, BARBARA H" <[e-mail]>
    Responder a: <[e-mail]>
    Fecha: viernes, 24 de febrero de 2017, 14:19
    Para: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, IPv6 Ops WG <[e-mail]>
    Asunto: RE: [v6ops] Requirements for IPv6 routers in various locations
    
        > Can we define what is a customer edge?
        
        RFC 7084 already includes a definition of what it means:
        
        IPv6 Customer Edge Router:
        a node intended for home or small-office use that forwards IPv6 packets not explicitly addressed to itself.  The IPv6 CE router connects the end-user network to a service provider network.
        
        I would suggest not trying to change this definition of this term, because I think that would be confusing. If a more encompassing term is needed, I think it would be better to create a new term.
        I would also be strongly opposed to any attempt at a RFC 7084 update that changed the scope of RFC 7084.
        
        > 1) Pure residential
        > 2) Residential with small home office
        > 3) Residential/techie (with or w/o home office) that have exported services
        > (email server, web server, VPN server, etc.).
        > 4) Small home office
        > 5) SMEs with just use Internet for “browsing”, emailing, etc.
        > 6) SMEs as in the previous case that also have exported services (email
        > server, web server, VPN server, etc.).
        
        Clearly, 1, 2, and 4 are included in the RFC 7084 definition. If the needs of 3, 5, and 6 are met by a device designed for 1/2/4, then they are certainly welcome to use it. If such a device does not meet the needs of 3/5/6, then it doesn't meet their needs.
        
        Barbara 
        
    
    
    
    **********************************************
    IPv4 is over
    Are you ready for the new Internet ?
    http://www.consulintel.es
    The IPv6 Company
    
    This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
    
    
    
    _______________________________________________
    v6ops mailing list
    [e-mail]
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
    
    **********************************************
    IPv4 is over
    Are you ready for the new Internet ?
    http://www.consulintel.es
    The IPv6 Company
    
    This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
    
    
    



**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.