Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-palet-v6ops-rfc7084-bis-00.txt

[Tim Chown <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

> On 22 Feb 2017, at 08:49, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> I think vendors don’t see this as different equipment.
> 
> I’m working in all the RIR regions, not just Spain, and most of my customers are small and medium ISPs; some are big ones.
> 
> All them follow the model I mention before. If they place big orders, they speak directly to the CPE manufacturer, sometimes they agree on specific firmware modifications.
> 
> But in all the cases, end-users can buy their own CPE, replace the one provided by the ISP, or setup the one from the ISP in “bridge” mode and use their own behind the ISP one.
> 
> I don’t think vendors make a difference, in fact, all the routers that up to now I’ve seen provided and managed by the ISPs, can be also acquired in retail stores, Internet, etc. (sometimes same product different label).
> 
> In all my customers and all what I’ve seen up to now, even if this CPE is managed, this management can be disable by the users, because they have the legal right to do so (if we want to go to that point). They just need to use the same parameters/protocols as the original ISP supplied device was having (or as said have it configured in bridge mode).
> 
> So the point here is: I don’t think the vendors do different things for the products that go directly to the ISP and the retail market. Sometimes the difference is only that the products for the ISP have “some extra” functions or come pre-configured in some way, so I don’t see we need to have different documents.
> 
> Moreover, ISPs talking to vendors (usually big ISPs) will take 7084 (or a possible successor), as a starting point (as they do today), and ask the manufacturer to add what they need (even if it is not “standard”).

It seems one option to is to have a base document (which might be 7084-bis) and then have a document that presents deployment scenarios and recommends specific functionality for those scenarios. For example, HNCP is certainly important in some scenarios. Such a complementary document could also cite the sources Barbara refers to. This might also be a way to present the “transition” mechanisms in a more coherent way.

Tim

> Saludos,
> Jordi
> 
> 
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: Fred Baker <[e-mail]>
> Responder a: <[e-mail]>
> Fecha: miércoles, 22 de febrero de 2017, 9:22
> Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[e-mail]>
> CC: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> Asunto: Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-palet-v6ops-rfc7084-bis-00.txt
> 
> 
>> On Feb 21, 2017, at 11:47 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Not being a native English speaker I really feel that I’m in the limit to understand correctly what is a “retail” vendor and what are the other types, so to understand what makes them different in terms of requirements.
> 
>    I think she is comparing equipment that is sold to an ISP and used in a managed service (which would be specified by a Cable Labs or Broadband Forum document) to equipment that is sold in a store, purchased by the user, and installed by them. I don't know what you have in Spain, but we have both types of service; the router in my home was purchased by me and is not managed by my ISP, but AT&T (and other ISPs) have equipment that they install as part of a service managed by the ISP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> **********************************************
> 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