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

HI Fred,

My initial view on this.

I prefer in general a single document. I think 7084 is a good starting point.

I look into the reality of the market.

Most of the CEs/CPEs that are being sold/installed are used in several scenarios:
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.).

Those CPEs are in the range of 15USD to 150USD, but even much more expensive (up to 500USD) if they have sophisticated WiFi support. This is very common for gammers.

Then we have other cases for big corporates. Those typically use more expensive equipment, WiFi with APs, etc. In this case, there is a “smart” and conscious decision, typically there are engineers that design the network, or an external company, and decide what equipment they need and what are the required features. I also believe that in many cases, the required features may be the same as for 6 above.

I believe the cases that you mention as content providers, data centers, etc, etc., are probably closer to the big corporates model that I just mention, and to be honest, I don’t know if we need to say what are the requirements, as I tend to believe that the market is doing it correctly. We can just have a section in the document explaining this scenario, but not sure if we need a new/different document for this.

What James indicated may be not required for 6, but is in the “limit”.

So looking into this, I believe that it will be much better, easier and less confusing, to evolve 7084, and if required, include some text/section with possible target scenarios and state there “this may be not required in this scenario” (just an example).

I believe draft-ali-ipv6rtr has a different scope, but I will need to read it again to make sure. 7084 seems to be the right place because it has already a good base of what we intend to do (in my opinion).

Regards,
Jordi

-----Mensaje original-----
De: v6ops <v6ops-bounces@ietf.org> en nombre de Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
Responder a: <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
Fecha: miércoles, 22 de febrero de 2017, 2:09
Para: IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
Asunto: [v6ops] Requirements for IPv6 routers in various locations

    This argument is essentially what I was referring to with respect to draft-ali-ipv6rtr-reqs when I said we had multiple markets that RFC 1812 didn't have to address. They include, at least, ISP, content network, data center, enterprise, residential, IoT, and mobile wireless networks. Those markets have differing non-exclusive sets of requirements.

    Let me throw a question to the working group. One way to approach this is to try to push requirements for all of those markets into one document, which is what I think James is trying to do. Another way is to separate them, which is what I think Barbara is trying to do. I'm not going to say that either is automatically right or automatically wrong, but they are different, and I have visions of an argument that takes forever, boils blood, and nobody wins, if we don't systematically address it.

    I see two approaches that might be considered reasonable. One would be to add a section about residential networks (which are definitively not ISP networks, but use routers that might also be used as ISP "customer-edge" routers) to the document, stating that it is requirements for routers that might be used within a multi-router residential network including the router connected to the ISP; the other would be to invite a separate document that addresses residential networks.

    If we take the latter approach, we might as well also invite separate documents (or in the former approach, separate sections) describing requirements for IPv6 routers in ISP, content network, data center, enterprise, IoT, and mobile wireless networks. This might be one of those, and draft-ali might be one of those. I suspect we will find that a lot of the requirements are in fact common, and could be described in a core document. But I don't know of any ISPs suggesting the use of HNCP, residential networks discussing RPL, or yada yada yada.

    Opinions?

    On Feb 21, 2017, at 4:41 PM, STARK, BARBARA H <bs7652@att.com> wrote:
    > 
    > The charter of v6ops is still doing things that help get IPv6 rolled out. Which is exactly what these ISPs are asking for help with. Which has nothing to do with multi-router home network topologies.
    >  
    > I believe a very targeted document to meet the needs of these ISPs is what we should be aiming for.
    > Barbara
    >  
    > From: v6ops [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of james woodyatt
    > Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 3:22 PM
    > To: IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
    > Subject: Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-palet-v6ops-rfc7084-bis-00.txt
    >  
    > On Feb 21, 2017, at 01:11, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> wrote:
    >  
    >> I’ve submitted a -bis draft for updating RFC7084 (Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers).
    >  
    > I strongly believe that any update to RFC 7084 that doesn’t REQUIRE the LAN interfaces to provide HNCP services [RFC 7788] is an incomplete update.
    >  
    > --james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>
    >  
    >  
    >  
    > _______________________________________________
    > v6ops mailing list
    > v6ops@ietf.org
    > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

    _______________________________________________
    v6ops mailing list
    v6ops@ietf.org
    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.