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

[t.petch <[e-mail]>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Baker" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 1:09 AM

> 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.
>

Separate.

I think that most of the requirements documents fail, at least in part,
because they end up as the logical OR of everyone's wish list.  Look,
for example, at the little discussion currently in progress on the
wisdom or otherwise of /64.  Any one marketplace has its own clear view
but merge them together and you have a slight lack of agreement.

So let's have sets of requirements focussed on a marketplaces,
separately documented.

I always find Barbara's comments most insightful because she is
describing a world I have no knowledge of, of whose requirements I would
otherwise be unaware of; merge them into everyone else's and I would be
wondering what on earth is this doing here.

Tom Petch

> 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 <[e-mail]> 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