[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