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

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

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.