OTOH talking about DS-lite & co, my view of RIPE-554 is that it is really useful for SMB or larger enterprises to specify what they have to acquire. And, I am unsure about the use case of MAP, 6RD,. . . technologies for this kind of organizations. SP buying large quantities of ‘managed’ CPE should know by now about 6RD, MAP, … :-) so they do not need RIPE-554 (even if it still useful for part of their networks) Residential subscribers should indeed only rely on IPv6-ready CPE logo. -éric On 7/01/15 11:15, "Mikael Abrahamsson" <swmike@swm.pp.se> wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jan 2015, Ole Troan wrote:
． RFC6204 (Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers) * => RFC7084 and requires CE-Router Logo <image001.png>
the delta between 6204 and 7084 is largely the addition of the 6rd and DS-lite. since 7084 was published quite a lot has happened on new mechanisms for IPv4 address sharing. e.g. MAP. I would think 554bis should take those into account as well.
This is an interesting discussion. MAP and LW4o6 would be interesting mechanisms to require support for, absolutely. I am not sure how much of the control plane for these mechanisms that are actually done and in published RFCs yet, but will look into it!
It's hard to require support for something that might not be 100% done and deployable using available RFCs, even though there are multiple implementations of these already.
-- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se