We suggest that RIPE-554bis CPE equipment requires RFC 7084 and CE-Router Logo. Thank you!
Hello Sir: We suggest that RIPE-554bis CPE equipment requires RFC 7084 and CE-Router Logo. (https://www.ipv6ready.org/?page=documents&tag=phase-2-cpe ) CE-Router Logo are developed by US UNH-IOL, CableLab and Taiwan CHT-TL. CE-Router Logo Conformance Test Software is developed by CHT-TL IPv6 Testing Lab. The URL is as follows: http://interop.ipv6.org.tw/CERouter/ Thank you very much! Best Regards, Wan-Der Chiou@CHT-TL IPv6 Testing Lab. http://interop.ipv6.org.tw/English/index.php Requirements for CPE equipment Mandatory support: · RFC6204 (Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers) * => RFC7084 and requires CE-Router Logo [../images/IPv6_CE_Router1.png] Please be advised that this email message (including any attachments) contains confidential information and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy this message and all attachments from your system and do not further collect, process, or use them. Chunghwa Telecom and all its subsidiaries and associated companies shall not be liable for the improper or incomplete transmission of the information contained in this email nor for any delay in its receipt or damage to your system. If you are the intended recipient, please protect the confidential and/or personal information contained in this email with due care. Any unauthorized use, disclosure or distribution of this message in whole or in part is strictly prohibited. Also, please self-inspect attachments and hyperlinks contained in this email to ensure the information security and to protect personal information.
． 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. cheers, Ole
On 05/01/15 09:02, 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.
Hi Yes, indeed... What I also hear from some operators that deployed IPv6 is that 464XLAT (CLAT part) would be a great idea to put it in CPE, so they can get rid of IPv4 in the access... :) We are already accumulating ideas and suggestions for 554bis, so when we get started we'll let you (and the community at large) know so we can chat and go through the suggestions. Cheers and thnx, Jan
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
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
Hello, Both IPv6 Ready Logo and CE-Router Logo do not test any transition technology. ISP operators and Vendors can buy commercial test equipments such as Ixia, Spirent to test 6RD, DS-Lite and MAP. RIPE-554bis can suggest some transition technology, but it is optional. Thank you! Best Regards, Wan-Der Chiou -----Original Message----- From: ipv6-wg [mailto:ipv6-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Eric Vyncke (evyncke) Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2015 6:36 PM To: ipv6-wg@ripe.net Subject: [Marketing Mail] Re: [ipv6-wg] We suggest that RIPE-554bis CPE equipment requires RFC 7084 and CE-Router Logo. Thank you! 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
本信件可能包含中華電信股份有限公司機密資訊,非指定之收件者,請勿蒐集、處理或利用本信件內容,並請銷毀此信件.如為指定收件者,應確實保護郵件中本公司之營業機密及個人資料,不得任意傳佈或揭露,並應自行確認本郵件之附檔與超連結之安全性,以共同善盡資訊安全與個資保護責任. Please be advised that this email message (including any attachments) contains confidential information and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy this message and all attachments from your system and do not further collect, process, or use them. Chunghwa Telecom and all its subsidiaries and associated companies shall not be liable for the improper or incomplete transmission of the information contained in this email nor for any delay in its receipt or damage to your system. If you are the intended recipient, please protect the confidential and/or personal information contained in this email with due care. Any unauthorized use, disclosure or distribution of this message in whole or in part is strictly prohibited. Also, please self-inspect attachments and hyperlinks contained in this email to ensure the information security and to protect personal information.
． 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.
the MAP and LW4o6 document series are stable and should be published as RFCs real soon now. all are at "Approved - announcement to be sent". https://datatracker.ietf.org/images/iesg-draft-state-diagram.png there are at least eight IETF solutions (L2TP, DS-lite, 464XLAT, Public 4over6, Lightweight 4over6, 4rd, MAP-T, MAP-E) to the same problem (IPv4 or shared IPv4 over IPv6). it's going to be interesting to figure out how 554bis should deal with that. cheers, Ole
On 07/01/15 11:38, Ole Troan wrote:
there are at least eight IETF solutions (L2TP, DS-lite, 464XLAT, Public 4over6, Lightweight 4over6, 4rd, MAP-T, MAP-E) to the same problem (IPv4 or shared IPv4 over IPv6). it's going to be interesting to figure out how 554bis should deal with that.
Hi, my first thought would be to put them in Optional section? :) What do you think or suggest? Cheers, Jan
On Jan 9, 2015, at 12:22 AM, "Jan Zorz @ go6.si" <jan@go6.si> wrote:
On 07/01/15 11:38, Ole Troan wrote:
there are at least eight IETF solutions (L2TP, DS-lite, 464XLAT, Public 4over6, Lightweight 4over6, 4rd, MAP-T, MAP-E) to the same problem (IPv4 or shared IPv4 over IPv6). it's going to be interesting to figure out how 554bis should deal with that.
Hi,
my first thought would be to put them in Optional section? :)
I would agree with this since all the options were developed for varying use cases and I'm not sure there's definitive subset we want to recommend. - merike
What do you think or suggest?
Cheers, Jan
Hello, CPE requires dual-stack. I suggest that all transition techs put into CPE equipment spec Optional section. Thank you! Best Regards. Wan-Der Chiou -----Original Message----- From: ipv6-wg [mailto:ipv6-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Jan Zorz @ go6.si Sent: Friday, January 09, 2015 4:23 PM To: ipv6-wg@ripe.net Subject: [Marketing Mail] Re: [ipv6-wg] We suggest that RIPE-554bis CPE equipment requires RFC 7084 and CE-Router Logo. Thank you! On 07/01/15 11:38, Ole Troan wrote:
there are at least eight IETF solutions (L2TP, DS-lite, 464XLAT, Public 4over6, Lightweight 4over6, 4rd, MAP-T, MAP-E) to the same problem (IPv4 or shared IPv4 over IPv6). it's going to be interesting to figure out how 554bis should deal with that.
Hi, my first thought would be to put them in Optional section? :) What do you think or suggest? Cheers, Jan 本信件可能包含中華電信股份有限公司機密資訊,非指定之收件者,請勿蒐集、處理或利用本信件內容,並請銷毀此信件.如為指定收件者,應確實保護郵件中本公司之營業機密及個人資料,不得任意傳佈或揭露,並應自行確認本郵件之附檔與超連結之安全性,以共同善盡資訊安全與個資保護責任. Please be advised that this email message (including any attachments) contains confidential information and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy this message and all attachments from your system and do not further collect, process, or use them. Chunghwa Telecom and all its subsidiaries and associated companies shall not be liable for the improper or incomplete transmission of the information contained in this email nor for any delay in its receipt or damage to your system. If you are the intended recipient, please protect the confidential and/or personal information contained in this email with due care. Any unauthorized use, disclosure or distribution of this message in whole or in part is strictly prohibited. Also, please self-inspect attachments and hyperlinks contained in this email to ensure the information security and to protect personal information.
Am 09.01.2015 um 09:22 schrieb Jan Zorz @ go6.si:
On 07/01/15 11:38, Ole Troan wrote:
there are at least eight IETF solutions (L2TP, DS-lite, 464XLAT, Public 4over6, Lightweight 4over6, 4rd, MAP-T, MAP-E) to the same problem (IPv4 or shared IPv4 over IPv6). it's going to be interesting to figure out how 554bis should deal with that.
Hi,
my first thought would be to put them in Optional section? :)
What do you think or suggest?
Cheers, Jan
Hi, Yes, put them in the optional section. I don't think many vendors want to implement all of them in their CPE routers. If we put too many technologies in the "mandatory" section, the vendors will ignore the document and it becomes useless. Cheers, Wilhelm
participants (7)
-
Eric Vyncke (evyncke) -
Jan Zorz ＠ go6.si -
Merike Kaeo -
Mikael Abrahamsson -
Ole Troan -
Wilhelm Boeddinghaus -
邱萬德