Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-requirements-00.txt

"STARK, BARBARA H" <> Mon, 19 November 2012 15:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB40E21F847D for <>; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 07:35:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.642
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.642 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.044, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BaWYrz2vkfHr for <>; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 07:35:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40D6321F8469 for <>; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 07:35:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from unknown [] (EHLO by with ESMTP id (envelope-from <>); Mon, 19 Nov 2012 15:35:09 +0000 (UTC)
X-MXL-Hash: 50aa51ad33cdf3f5-e025568de9e0ad72ca641eedfcbbf864370d155f
Received: from unknown [] (EHLO by over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id (envelope-from <>); Mon, 19 Nov 2012 15:35:02 +0000 (UTC)
X-MXL-Hash: 50aa51a61b208cdd-ded616bf480e0349f4a6c7ea9dcb8a218a557941
Received: from (localhost.localdomain []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qAJFYtCx002800; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 10:34:58 -0500
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qAJFYI4q001745 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 19 Nov 2012 10:34:45 -0500
Received: from ( []) by (RSA Interceptor); Mon, 19 Nov 2012 10:34:06 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 10:34:06 -0500
To: "" <>, Lorenzo Colitti <>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-requirements-00.txt
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 15:34:05 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6112F5DCF28GAALPA1MSGUSR9L_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-RSA-Inspected: yes
X-RSA-Classifications: public
X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; CM=0.500; S=0.200(2010122901)]
X-AnalysisOut: [v=2.0 cv=VcpAyiV9 c=1 sm=0 a=Qs8R1XBwmid1qBFB/a8mmA==:17 a]
X-AnalysisOut: [=GD_NjPN4rjcA:10 a=THjfo8TEUvAA:10 a=ofMgfj31e3cA:10 a=BLc]
X-AnalysisOut: [eEmwcHowA:10 a=zQP7CpKOAAAA:8 a=XIqpo32RAAAA:8 a=Ri5rfPnKy]
X-AnalysisOut: [qoA:10 a=uO1LomaR_b2s4cga2dcA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=yMhMjl]
X-AnalysisOut: [ubAAAA:8 a=SSmOFEACAAAA:8 a=gKO2Hq4RSVkA:10 a=UiCQ7L4-1S4A]
X-AnalysisOut: [:10 a=hTZeC7Yk6K0A:10 a=frz4AuCg-hUA:10 a=amikSfmOx09uIeGE]
X-AnalysisOut: [:21]
Cc: IPv6 Ops WG <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-requirements-00.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 15:35:11 -0000

Does the IETF define an IPv4 profile? If not, why not?
[[david]] As an operator, I would say such document would not be required if we had IPv6 terminals. But it is not the case and we need to get such reference even if it is not our only action to get such devices.
Does the IETF define an IPv6 profile for CPE ? Yes. Now, there is RFC6204.

<bhs> Just to explain a bit of RFC 6204 history --  CableLabs and Broadband Forum had no difficulty (internal to their respective orgs) in defining requirements / device profiles for CE routers that are expected to attach to their respective access architectures. The reason these organizations came to IETF was so there could be requirements available for retail devices (that had no expectation of required compliance to any BBF or CableLabs spec) that wanted to understand what was needed to attach successfully to either access architecture. There are many additional requirements in the CableLabs eRouter specs and BBF TR-124i3 that describe requirements for CE routers that are intended only for those environments. Note that RFC 6204 (and 6204bis) do not reference any BBF or CableLabs spec. Rather, it is expected that those organization's specs will reference or be consistent with RFC 6204 (6204bis), and build upon that as the base for their architecture-specific requirements. In cases where BBF has total control over specifying an interface, BBF has been known to ask IETF for help with needed Layer 3 protocol definition and extensions and recommendations for appropriate requirements, but not for actual creation or publication of device or network element functional profiles or requirements.