Re: [v6ops] possible path forward with RFC7084 and transition/other stuff

["STARK, BARBARA H" <[e-mail]>]

> 1) Not change/update the existing RFC7084.
> 2) Use my “Transition Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers”
> document (draft-palet-v6ops-rfc7084-bis-transition-00) as a starting point,
> which “extend” the requirements of RFC7084 towards supporting actual
> world transition requirements.
> 3) In this updated document, the transition requirements can then be a
> MUST, so vendors take it seriously.
> 4) I will include the reference to RFC8026 (some more text, as this reference
> is already in all my docs regarding this topic), so there is a “flow” of how the
> pair “ISP-CE” can get working IPv6 and then IPv4 if it is available from the ISP
> “as a service”. I think this can have also what Fred was suggesting as “IPv6
> must be on by default”, right?

I would support this. If your goal really is encouraging the availability of CE routers with these v4 over v6 technologies, this is the approach I would recommend.

> CHOICE 2 (to make it clear, my own toughs after waking up this morning, not
> discussed with the other folks yesterday):
> Same as choice 1 above, but include also support for HNCP and may be
> something else if we believe it is required during the development of this
> document (for example it seems clear that if we offer IPv4 as a service,
> because actual multicast-based IPTV services run on IPv4, we need to keep
> supporting that on top of an IPv6-only access).
> So then the document will be renamed to something such as “Transition and
> extended requirements for IPv6 CE routers”.

I would not support this. I think it would make the document less focused and therefore more likely to be ignored.

Barbara