Last Call (20101117): Requirements For IPv6 in ICT Equipment
Working Group, The "Requirements For IPv6 in ICT Equipment" draft seems to have reached a level of maturity that is enough to issue a formal Last Call to determine whether it is ready for publication as a RIPE document. The latest version is available here: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ipv6-ict-requirements.html We would appreciate if you let us know by the end of November 17, 2010 if you have read the document and whether you support the publication of the document. As long as we get at least 8 statements of support and no significant issues are raised, we will ask the RIPE NCC to publish the document after fixing minor editorial issues (if found). David, Marco & Shane ---
On 7.11.10 10:17, David Kessens wrote:
As long as we get at least 8 statements of support and no significant issues are raised, we will ask the RIPE NCC to publish the document after fixing minor editorial issues (if found).
My statement of support doesn't count, does it? :) :) :) Please, if anyone thinks this document might be usefull as a guide for requirements, when buying new equipment, pleade do tell. "+1" does the trick :) Thnx and see you in Rome, Jan Zorz go6.si
+1 -----Original Message----- From: ipv6-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:ipv6-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Jan Zorz @ go6.si Sent: Sunday, November 07, 2010 11:49 AM To: ipv6-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] Last Call (20101117): Requirements For IPv6 in ICT Equipment On 7.11.10 10:17, David Kessens wrote:
As long as we get at least 8 statements of support and no significant issues are raised, we will ask the RIPE NCC to publish the document after fixing minor editorial issues (if found).
My statement of support doesn't count, does it? :) :) :) Please, if anyone thinks this document might be usefull as a guide for requirements, when buying new equipment, pleade do tell. "+1" does the trick :) Thnx and see you in Rome, Jan Zorz go6.si Op dit e-mailbericht is een disclaimer van toepassing, welke te vinden is op http://www.espritxb.nl/disclaimer
+2 (hey, I'm fat :) ) Us On 11/08/2010 08:36 AM, Jasper Jans wrote:
+1
-----Original Message----- From: ipv6-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:ipv6-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Jan Zorz @ go6.si Sent: Sunday, November 07, 2010 11:49 AM To: ipv6-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] Last Call (20101117): Requirements For IPv6 in ICT Equipment
On 7.11.10 10:17, David Kessens wrote:
As long as we get at least 8 statements of support and no significant issues are raised, we will ask the RIPE NCC to publish the document after fixing minor editorial issues (if found).
My statement of support doesn't count, does it? :) :) :)
Please, if anyone thinks this document might be usefull as a guide for requirements, when buying new equipment, pleade do tell.
"+1" does the trick :)
Thnx and see you in Rome, Jan Zorz go6.si
Op dit e-mailbericht is een disclaimer van toepassing, welke te vinden is op http://www.espritxb.nl/disclaimer
+1 Isacco David Kessens ha scritto:
Working Group,
The "Requirements For IPv6 in ICT Equipment" draft seems to have reached a level of maturity that is enough to issue a formal Last Call to determine whether it is ready for publication as a RIPE document.
The latest version is available here:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ipv6-ict-requirements.html
We would appreciate if you let us know by the end of November 17, 2010 if you have read the document and whether you support the publication of the document.
As long as we get at least 8 statements of support and no significant issues are raised, we will ask the RIPE NCC to publish the document after fixing minor editorial issues (if found).
David, Marco & Shane ---
-- Ing. Isacco Fontana Trentino Network s.r.l. A socio Unico Direzione Servizi Responsabile Area Ingegneria di Rete Via Gilli, 2 - 38100 TRENTO Tel (+39) 0461.020200 Fax (+39) 0461.020201 http://as12835.peeringdb.com/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cap. Soc. sottoscritto € 7.573.248,00 i.v. - REG. IMP. C.F. e P. IVA 01904880224 E-mail: sede@trentinonetwork.it Società soggetta a direzione e controllo da parte della Provincia Autonoma di Trento. C.F. e P. IVA 00337460224 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi, I suggest to add for *"Requirements for "router or layer 3 switch equipment "* section the support to 6VPE for VPN MPLS environment... Isacco David Kessens ha scritto:
Working Group,
The "Requirements For IPv6 in ICT Equipment" draft seems to have reached a level of maturity that is enough to issue a formal Last Call to determine whether it is ready for publication as a RIPE document.
The latest version is available here:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ipv6-ict-requirements.html
We would appreciate if you let us know by the end of November 17, 2010 if you have read the document and whether you support the publication of the document.
As long as we get at least 8 statements of support and no significant issues are raised, we will ask the RIPE NCC to publish the document after fixing minor editorial issues (if found).
David, Marco & Shane ---
-- Ing. Isacco Fontana Trentino Network s.r.l. A socio Unico Direzione Servizi Responsabile Area Ingegneria di Rete Via Gilli, 2 - 38100 TRENTO Tel (+39) 0461.020200 Fax (+39) 0461.020201 http://as12835.peeringdb.com/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cap. Soc. sottoscritto EUR 7.573.248,00 i.v. - REG. IMP. C.F. e P. IVA 01904880224 E-mail: sede@trentinonetwork.it Società soggetta a direzione e controllo da parte della Provincia Autonoma di Trento. C.F. e P. IVA 00337460224 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 8.11.10 9:10, Isacco Fontana wrote:
Hi, I suggest to add for *"Requirements for "router or layer 3 switch equipment "* section the support to 6VPE for VPN MPLS environment...
Isacco
Hey, Thnx for comment. You suggest to add it to optional requirements or to mandatory? Would you be happy with this wording: - BGP-MPLS IP VPN Extension for IPv6 VPN [RFC4659] What about RFC4798 (6PE)? Thnx, /jan
6VPE (RFC 4659) 6PE (RFC 4798) These RFC are related to MPLS environment so I think 6PE and 6VPE should be mandatory for ISP that are using MPLS and offer ipv6 for direct internet connections and 6VPE for ipv6 over vpn mpls services. Isacco Jan Zorz @ go6.si ha scritto:
On 8.11.10 9:10, Isacco Fontana wrote:
Hi, I suggest to add for *"Requirements for "router or layer 3 switch equipment "* section the support to 6VPE for VPN MPLS environment...
Isacco
Hey,
Thnx for comment. You suggest to add it to optional requirements or to mandatory?
Would you be happy with this wording:
- BGP-MPLS IP VPN Extension for IPv6 VPN [RFC4659]
What about RFC4798 (6PE)?
Thnx, /jan
-- Ing. Isacco Fontana Trentino Network s.r.l. A socio Unico Direzione Servizi Responsabile Area Ingegneria di Rete Via Gilli, 2 - 38100 TRENTO Tel (+39) 0461.020200 Fax (+39) 0461.020201 http://as12835.peeringdb.com/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cap. Soc. sottoscritto € 7.573.248,00 i.v. - REG. IMP. C.F. e P. IVA 01904880224 E-mail: sede@trentinonetwork.it Società soggetta a direzione e controllo da parte della Provincia Autonoma di Trento. C.F. e P. IVA 00337460224 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 8.11.10 10:00, Isacco Fontana wrote:
6VPE (RFC 4659) 6PE (RFC 4798)
These RFC are related to MPLS environment so I think 6PE and 6VPE should be mandatory for ISP that are using MPLS and offer ipv6 for direct internet connections and 6VPE for ipv6 over vpn mpls services.
So, the correct wording inside mandatory section would be: - if IPv6 over MPLS and IPv6 over VPN MPLS features are requested, 6PE or 6VPE must be supported [RFC4798, RFC4659] The contracting authority shall specify the required protocol. Is this acceptable? Thnx, Jan Zorz
I think this is acceptable: - if IPv6 over IPv4 MPLS and IPv6 over VPN MPLS features are requested, 6PE or 6VPE must be supported [RFC4798, RFC4659] The contracting authority shall specify the required protocol. Today every ISP with MPLS Backbone should be support 6PE and 6VPE standards. Isacco Jan Zorz @ go6.si ha scritto:
On 8.11.10 10:00, Isacco Fontana wrote:
6VPE (RFC 4659) 6PE (RFC 4798)
These RFC are related to MPLS environment so I think 6PE and 6VPE should be mandatory for ISP that are using MPLS and offer ipv6 for direct internet connections and 6VPE for ipv6 over vpn mpls services.
So, the correct wording inside mandatory section would be:
- if IPv6 over MPLS and IPv6 over VPN MPLS features are requested, 6PE or 6VPE must be supported [RFC4798, RFC4659] The contracting authority shall specify the required protocol.
Is this acceptable?
Thnx, Jan Zorz
-- Ing. Isacco Fontana Trentino Network s.r.l. A socio Unico Direzione Servizi Responsabile Area Ingegneria di Rete Via Gilli, 2 - 38100 TRENTO Tel (+39) 0461.020200 Fax (+39) 0461.020201 http://as12835.peeringdb.com/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cap. Soc. sottoscritto € 7.573.248,00 i.v. - REG. IMP. C.F. e P. IVA 01904880224 E-mail: sede@trentinonetwork.it Società soggetta a direzione e controllo da parte della Provincia Autonoma di Trento. C.F. e P. IVA 00337460224 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Le 10-11-08 18:15, Jan Zorz @ go6.si a écrit :
On 8.11.10 10:00, Isacco Fontana wrote:
6VPE (RFC 4659) 6PE (RFC 4798)
These RFC are related to MPLS environment so I think 6PE and 6VPE should be mandatory for ISP that are using MPLS and offer ipv6 for direct internet connections and 6VPE for ipv6 over vpn mpls services.
So, the correct wording inside mandatory section would be:
- if IPv6 over MPLS and IPv6 over VPN MPLS features are requested, 6PE or 6VPE must be supported [RFC4798, RFC4659] The contracting authority shall specify the required protocol.
does not make sense to me. 6PE and 6VPE are two ways to run IPv6 over MPLS network, but are not the only ones. Therefore, it can not be mandatory. Marc.
Is this acceptable?
Thnx, Jan Zorz
-- ========= IPv6 book: Migrating to IPv6, Wiley. http://www.ipv6book.ca Stun/Turn server for VoIP NAT-FW traversal: http://numb.viagenie.ca DTN Implementation: http://postellation.viagenie.ca NAT64-DNS64 Opensource: http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
On 8.11.10 11:31, Marc Blanchet wrote:
does not make sense to me.
6PE and 6VPE are two ways to run IPv6 over MPLS network, but are not the only ones. Therefore, it can not be mandatory.
Marc, hi :) Did not know you are on this list :) :) What do you suggest? Re-wording, add additional mechanisms or move it to optional section? Basically it is written "If requested by tender initiator...", that makes it as a choice... /jan
On 8.11.10 11:31, Marc Blanchet wrote:
does not make sense to me.
6PE and 6VPE are two ways to run IPv6 over MPLS network, but are not
Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote on 08.11.2010 19:02:29: the only
ones. Therefore, it can not be mandatory.
What do you suggest? Re-wording, add additional mechanisms or move it to optional section? Basically it is written "If requested by tender initiator...", that makes it as a choice...
Hi, LDPv6 was a dream, but only in draft status [1] this time. So i don`t know where is a right place for it. [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-manral-mpls-ldp-ipv6-04 Regards Michael
Le 10-11-09 02:02, Jan Zorz @ go6.si a écrit :
On 8.11.10 11:31, Marc Blanchet wrote:
does not make sense to me.
6PE and 6VPE are two ways to run IPv6 over MPLS network, but are not the only ones. Therefore, it can not be mandatory.
Marc, hi :)
Did not know you are on this list :) :)
well, I've been here probably since the existence of the ripe ipv6 wg... We have been more active when we were working on the update of the RPSL (RPSLng) since we started that work a while ago and RPSLng was mostly discussed in RIPE...
What do you suggest? Re-wording, add additional mechanisms or move it to optional section?
my only point is the "mandatory" part. s/must/may|should consider/... Marc.
Basically it is written "If requested by tender initiator...", that makes it as a choice...
/jan
-- ========= IPv6 book: Migrating to IPv6, Wiley. http://www.ipv6book.ca Stun/Turn server for VoIP NAT-FW traversal: http://numb.viagenie.ca DTN Implementation: http://postellation.viagenie.ca NAT64-DNS64 Opensource: http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
Hi Marc, your issue is true about IPv4 only backbone....but today for ISP with MPLS backbone the 6PE and 6VPE are used to deploy ipv6 on MPLS backbone. Isacco Marc Blanchet ha scritto:
Le 10-11-08 18:15, Jan Zorz @ go6.si a écrit :
On 8.11.10 10:00, Isacco Fontana wrote:
6VPE (RFC 4659) 6PE (RFC 4798)
These RFC are related to MPLS environment so I think 6PE and 6VPE should be mandatory for ISP that are using MPLS and offer ipv6 for direct internet connections and 6VPE for ipv6 over vpn mpls services.
So, the correct wording inside mandatory section would be:
- if IPv6 over MPLS and IPv6 over VPN MPLS features are requested, 6PE or 6VPE must be supported [RFC4798, RFC4659] The contracting authority shall specify the required protocol.
does not make sense to me.
6PE and 6VPE are two ways to run IPv6 over MPLS network, but are not the only ones. Therefore, it can not be mandatory.
Marc.
Is this acceptable?
Thnx, Jan Zorz
-- Ing. Isacco Fontana Trentino Network s.r.l. A socio Unico Direzione Servizi Responsabile Area Ingegneria di Rete Via Gilli, 2 - 38100 TRENTO Tel (+39) 0461.020200 Fax (+39) 0461.020201 http://as12835.peeringdb.com/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cap. Soc. sottoscritto € 7.573.248,00 i.v. - REG. IMP. C.F. e P. IVA 01904880224 E-mail: sede@trentinonetwork.it Società soggetta a direzione e controllo da parte della Provincia Autonoma di Trento. C.F. e P. IVA 00337460224 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Le 10-11-09 02:44, Isacco Fontana a écrit :
Hi Marc, your issue is true about IPv4 only backbone....but today for ISP with MPLS backbone the 6PE and 6VPE are used to deploy ipv6 on MPLS backbone.
I know (and have been helping providers to deploy 6PE and 6VPE). My point is to make it "mandatory" is the issue. Marc.
Isacco
Marc Blanchet ha scritto:
Le 10-11-08 18:15, Jan Zorz @ go6.si a écrit :
On 8.11.10 10:00, Isacco Fontana wrote:
6VPE (RFC 4659) 6PE (RFC 4798)
These RFC are related to MPLS environment so I think 6PE and 6VPE should be mandatory for ISP that are using MPLS and offer ipv6 for direct internet connections and 6VPE for ipv6 over vpn mpls services.
So, the correct wording inside mandatory section would be:
- if IPv6 over MPLS and IPv6 over VPN MPLS features are requested, 6PE or 6VPE must be supported [RFC4798, RFC4659] The contracting authority shall specify the required protocol.
does not make sense to me.
6PE and 6VPE are two ways to run IPv6 over MPLS network, but are not the only ones. Therefore, it can not be mandatory.
Marc.
Is this acceptable?
Thnx, Jan Zorz
-- ========= IPv6 book: Migrating to IPv6, Wiley. http://www.ipv6book.ca Stun/Turn server for VoIP NAT-FW traversal: http://numb.viagenie.ca DTN Implementation: http://postellation.viagenie.ca NAT64-DNS64 Opensource: http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
Yes Marc, but if they are optional... some will be mandatory. What will be mandatory for Ipv4 Mpls backbone ? ;) If we use as mandatory dual stack the ipv6 vpn mpls not work. We must use 6VPE that is over ipv4. Today as you know LDPv6 is under developement by ietf and vendors will wait 1-2 years to deploy the protocol inside os. I think today and when ipv4 addresses will finsh the ipv4 mpls backbones remains the same ($$) and the 6PE and 6VPE will be used. Isacco Marc Blanchet ha scritto:
Le 10-11-09 02:44, Isacco Fontana a écrit :
Hi Marc, your issue is true about IPv4 only backbone....but today for ISP with MPLS backbone the 6PE and 6VPE are used to deploy ipv6 on MPLS backbone.
I know (and have been helping providers to deploy 6PE and 6VPE). My point is to make it "mandatory" is the issue.
Marc.
Isacco
Marc Blanchet ha scritto:
Le 10-11-08 18:15, Jan Zorz @ go6.si a écrit :
On 8.11.10 10:00, Isacco Fontana wrote:
6VPE (RFC 4659) 6PE (RFC 4798)
These RFC are related to MPLS environment so I think 6PE and 6VPE should be mandatory for ISP that are using MPLS and offer ipv6 for direct internet connections and 6VPE for ipv6 over vpn mpls services.
So, the correct wording inside mandatory section would be:
- if IPv6 over MPLS and IPv6 over VPN MPLS features are requested, 6PE or 6VPE must be supported [RFC4798, RFC4659] The contracting authority shall specify the required protocol.
does not make sense to me.
6PE and 6VPE are two ways to run IPv6 over MPLS network, but are not the only ones. Therefore, it can not be mandatory.
Marc.
Is this acceptable?
Thnx, Jan Zorz
-- Ing. Isacco Fontana Trentino Network s.r.l. A socio Unico Direzione Servizi Responsabile Area Ingegneria di Rete Via Gilli, 2 - 38100 TRENTO Tel (+39) 0461.020200 Fax (+39) 0461.020201 http://as12835.peeringdb.com/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cap. Soc. sottoscritto € 7.573.248,00 i.v. - REG. IMP. C.F. e P. IVA 01904880224 E-mail: sede@trentinonetwork.it Società soggetta a direzione e controllo da parte della Provincia Autonoma di Trento. C.F. e P. IVA 00337460224 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 9.11.10 2:29, Marc Blanchet wrote:
I know (and have been helping providers to deploy 6PE and 6VPE). My point is to make it "mandatory" is the issue.
The correct interpretation is "mandatory if functionality required" :) If you want to run 6PE or 6VPE, then it's mandatory that equipment supports it. Unconditionally mandatory are RFC lines, that does not contain "if required by". Does this make sense? /jan
On 11/09/2010 09:34 AM, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote:
On 9.11.10 2:29, Marc Blanchet wrote:
I know (and have been helping providers to deploy 6PE and 6VPE). My point is to make it "mandatory" is the issue.
The correct interpretation is "mandatory if functionality required" :)
If you want to run 6PE or 6VPE, then it's mandatory that equipment supports it.
Unconditionally mandatory are RFC lines, that does not contain "if required by".
Does this make sense?
/jan
I think this is a bit redundant. It reads as "if you need, you must have it". Us
On 9.11.10 9:39, Us wrote:
I think this is a bit redundant. It reads as "if you need, you must have it".
Yes. For example a car. Car must have some basic functionality, that is mandatory. Now, if you want to do some additional stuff with your car, you need to require that and when you require that it becomes mandatory. It's mandatory, that car moves on the road. If you need to carry bigger load, then you require the car to be a bit different. Still a car, but with mandatory functions that you need for your job, like a big booth or something. If you don't require a functionality it is not mandatory. /jan
I support this document to be published. Good work, well done. Some suggestions: - RFC 2461 (2 occurrences) to be replaced by RFC 4861? - RFC 2462 (1 occurrence) to be replaced by RFC 4862 What about load balancers, these types of equipment can hardly fit in the categories defined (if I'm correct). Yet they might be a pain in termes ov v6-v4 functional and performance parity. Is that implicitly included somewhere (I might overlooked) or just omitted/forgotten? Mohsen. On 07 Nov, David Kessens wrote: | | Working Group, | | The "Requirements For IPv6 in ICT Equipment" draft seems to have reached a | level of maturity that is enough to issue a formal Last Call to determine | whether it is ready for publication as a RIPE document. | | The latest version is available here: | | http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ipv6-ict-requirements.html | | We would appreciate if you let us know by the end of November 17, 2010 if | you have read the document and whether you support the publication of the | document. | | As long as we get at least 8 statements of support and no significant issues | are raised, we will ask the RIPE NCC to publish the document after fixing | minor editorial issues (if found). | | David, Marco & Shane
On 9.11.10 3:56, Mohsen Souissi wrote:
I support this document to be published. Good work, well done.
Some suggestions:
- RFC 2461 (2 occurrences) to be replaced by RFC 4861? - RFC 2462 (1 occurrence) to be replaced by RFC 4862
Hi, fixed, thnx for head up. Will be visible in next version of the draft.
What about load balancers, these types of equipment can hardly fit in the categories defined (if I'm correct). Yet they might be a pain in termes ov v6-v4 functional and performance parity.
This document is intended to be published as BCP and we can add/change things also later, after publication. I agree load balancers hardly fit in any category, but we had to stop expanding the complexity at some point :) If we find approach how to specify that without adding more complexity, we can add that later, if community will agree on that. thnx, /jan
In your previous mail you wrote: The latest version is available here: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ipv6-ict-requirements.html We would appreciate if you let us know by the end of November 17, 2010 if you have read the document and whether you support the publication of the document. => yes As long as we get at least 8 statements of support and no significant issues are raised, we will ask the RIPE NCC to publish the document after fixing minor editorial issues (if found). => there is at least one error: IKEv2 relies on IPsec-v3 so it is not possible to require IPsec-v2 and IKEv2 with IPsec-v3 optional. There are two ways to solve this: make IKEv2 optional or IMHO far better swap IPsec-v2 and IPsec-v3. BTW I think the correct spelling for UPNP is UPnP (lower case 'n'). Thanks Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr
Following Francis's messages, some references updates below: On 09 Nov, Francis Dupont wrote: [...] | | As long as we get at least 8 statements of support and no significant issues | are raised, we will ask the RIPE NCC to publish the document after fixing | minor editorial issues (if found). | | => there is at least one error: IKEv2 relies on IPsec-v3 so it is not | possible to require IPsec-v2 and IKEv2 with IPsec-v3 optional. | There are two ways to solve this: make IKEv2 optional or IMHO far better | swap IPsec-v2 and IPsec-v3. For IKEv2: s/[RFC4306, RFC4718]/[RFC5996] For IPsec-v3: s/[RFC2401]/[RFC4301] s/[RFC2402]/[RFC4302, RFC4835] s/[RFC2406]/[RFC4303, RFC4835] Btw, to monitor which RFC obsoletes/is obsoloted by/updates/is updated by which RFC(s), I would recommend this very good reference: http://www.rfc-editor.org/cgi-bin/rfcsearch.pl Mohsen.
On 9.11.10 4:29, Francis Dupont wrote:
We would appreciate if you let us know by the end of November 17, 2010 if you have read the document and whether you support the publication of the document.
=> yes
Hi, Thnx for your support (for support from all of you :) )
As long as we get at least 8 statements of support and no significant issues are raised, we will ask the RIPE NCC to publish the document after fixing minor editorial issues (if found).
=> there is at least one error: IKEv2 relies on IPsec-v3 so it is not possible to require IPsec-v2 and IKEv2 with IPsec-v3 optional. There are two ways to solve this: make IKEv2 optional or IMHO far better swap IPsec-v2 and IPsec-v3.
Theoretically I agree with you. But we try not to currently exclude too much hardware. What percentage of current equipment you can buy supports IPsec-v3 ?
BTW I think the correct spelling for UPNP is UPnP (lower case 'n').
Will fix, thnx. /jan
Working Group, The Last Call on "Requirements For IPv6 in ICT Equipment" draft was completed on 20101117. We received 5 statements of support (not counting one of the authors) on the mailing list and various verbal statements of support during the RIPE meeting. We feel that this is close enough to the 8 statements of support that we requested in order to move ahead with publication. In addition, there was also some discussion on the mailing list regarding a few editorial changes and some discussion regarding MPLS requirements. Jan has produced a new version of the document that reflects the discussion. The document is available on the RIPE website: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ipv6-ict-requirements.html We would like to issue a brief Last Call to make sure that the changes accurately reflect the discussion on the mailing list. Please let us know by the end of November 23, 2010 if you don't agree with the changes. As the number of formal statements of support was a little at the low side we would also like to encourage you to state your support for the document if you haven't done so already. David, Marco & Shane Co-chairs of the IPv6 working group ---
Editorial comment: the bullet ... "If 6PE is requested, the equipment must comply with "Connecting IPv6 Islands over IPv4 MPLS Using IPv6 Provider Edge Routers (6PE)” [RFC4798]" ... in the "router or layer-3 switch" section is rephrased somewhat more generically in the bullet ... "If MPLS functionality (for example, BGP-free core, MPLS TE, MPLS FRR) is requested, the PE-routers and route reflectors must support "Connecting IPv6 Islands over IPv4 MPLS Using IPv6 Provider Edge Routers (6PE)" [RFC 4798]" ... in the same section. I would suggest we remove the first one. Ivan Pepelnjak www.ioshints.info/about
-----Original Message----- From: ipv6-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:ipv6-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of David Kessens Sent: Friday, November 19, 2010 11:56 AM To: ipv6-wg@ripe.net Subject: [ipv6-wg] Last Call (20101123) on changes: Requirements For IPv6 in ICT Equipment
Working Group,
The Last Call on "Requirements For IPv6 in ICT Equipment" draft was completed on 20101117.
We received 5 statements of support (not counting one of the authors) on the mailing list and various verbal statements of support during the RIPE meeting. We feel that this is close enough to the 8 statements of support that we requested in order to move ahead with publication.
In addition, there was also some discussion on the mailing list regarding a few editorial changes and some discussion regarding MPLS requirements.
Jan has produced a new version of the document that reflects the discussion. The document is available on the RIPE website:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ipv6-ict-requirements.html
We would like to issue a brief Last Call to make sure that the changes accurately reflect the discussion on the mailing list.
Please let us know by the end of November 23, 2010 if you don't agree with the changes. As the number of formal statements of support was a little at the low side we would also like to encourage you to state your support for the document if you haven't done so already.
David, Marco & Shane Co-chairs of the IPv6 working group ---
On 19.11.2010 14:59, Ivan Pepelnjak wrote:
Editorial comment: the bullet ...
"If 6PE is requested, the equipment must comply with "Connecting IPv6 Islands over IPv4 MPLS Using IPv6 Provider Edge Routers (6PE)” [RFC4798]"
... in the "router or layer-3 switch" section is rephrased somewhat more generically in the bullet ...
"If MPLS functionality (for example, BGP-free core, MPLS TE, MPLS FRR) is requested, the PE-routers and route reflectors must support "Connecting IPv6 Islands over IPv4 MPLS Using IPv6 Provider Edge Routers (6PE)" [RFC 4798]"
... in the same section. I would suggest we remove the first one.
Ivan Pepelnjak www.ioshints.info/about
Pipi hi, thnx for comment. Chairs, can we include this as a minor editorial change in final document, if there are no other comments? I suggest we publish this document as v.1 and then start accumulating proposed ideas for v.2. Thnx to community again for all your expressed support, all the discussion and great RIPE61 meeting we had in Rome! ;) Best, Jan Zorz go6.si
On 20 nov 2010, at 12:32, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote:
On 19.11.2010 14:59, Ivan Pepelnjak wrote:
Editorial comment: the bullet ...
"If 6PE is requested, the equipment must comply with "Connecting IPv6 Islands over IPv4 MPLS Using IPv6 Provider Edge Routers (6PE)” [RFC4798]"
... in the "router or layer-3 switch" section is rephrased somewhat more generically in the bullet ...
"If MPLS functionality (for example, BGP-free core, MPLS TE, MPLS FRR) is requested, the PE-routers and route reflectors must support "Connecting IPv6 Islands over IPv4 MPLS Using IPv6 Provider Edge Routers (6PE)" [RFC 4798]"
... in the same section. I would suggest we remove the first one.
Ivan Pepelnjak www.ioshints.info/about
Pipi hi, thnx for comment.
Chairs, can we include this as a minor editorial change in final document, if there are no other comments?
I suggest we publish this document as v.1 and then start accumulating proposed ideas for v.2.
[Puts on his chair hat, as David is on vacation] Thanks for commenting. Looking at the tekst you are right that there is some redundancy in the text, but it's not a conflict and it does not create ambiguity. The underlying message stays the same "If you need MPLS, you need RFC 4798". Procedural I would like to publish as is instead of going into another cycle of editing and last call. No doubt in this next cycle there will be something else and the story will continue forever. At the meeting last week I spoke to various people who really want this to become official and get the draft label removed from it, so they can refer to it in their procedures. If there is anybody who has objections to publish the text as it's currently is, please state this clearly. I suggest we collect the editorial comments and fix them in a future version. Ivan, are you ok with this ? MarcoH IPv6 WG co-chair
Thanks for commenting. Looking at the tekst you are right that there is some redundancy in the text, but it's not a conflict and it does not create ambiguity. The underlying message stays the same "If you need MPLS, you need RFC 4798".
Procedural I would like to publish as is instead of going into another cycle of editing and last call [...]
[...] I suggest we collect the editorial comments and fix them in a future version.
Ivan, are you ok with this ?
Absolutely (and I totally agree with & support your reasons). Although the two bullets overlap, they do not contradict each other and having them both is not harmful. Let's get this done. Ivan
Working group, The Last Call on "Requirements For IPv6 in ICT Equipment" draft was completed on 20101123. We have received some small suggestions for future improvements, but no objections to publishing the text as it currently is. We asked the NCC to move forward and give this doucment official status by adding it to the document repository. This will happen in the coming days. Off list we received one comment about the document referring to RFC 4310 where it should say 4301, the authors confirmed this is indeed a typo and this will be corrected upon publication. Please not that when using this document as a reference it might get superseded by a newer version in the future, you might want to put a disclaimer next to the reference. Marco, David & Shane IPv6 working group co-chairs
participants (11)
-
David Kessens -
Francis Dupont -
Isacco Fontana -
Ivan Pepelnjak -
Jan Zorz ＠ go6.si -
Jasper Jans -
Marc Blanchet -
Marco Hogewoning -
Michael Schneider/calispera.com -
Mohsen Souissi -
Us