[132062] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Low end, cool CPE.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tim Chown)
Fri Nov 12 08:03:18 2010
From: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <87d3qaitvk.fsf@nemi.mork.no>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 13:03:00 +0000
To: nanog@nanog.org
X-ECS-MailScanner-From: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 12 Nov 2010, at 12:55, Bj=F8rn Mork wrote:
>=20
> This is far too diffuse. You'll get a "yes, we've got IPv6".
>=20
> You should at least add
> - IPv6 packet filtering and policy management (at least simple access
> lists)=20
> <snip>
>=20
> The point is: We've been asking for "IPv6" for too long. That's just
> one bit in a packet header. We need to start asking for the features =
we
> expect, which is a lot more than that bit.
For IPv6 CPE requirements, you might want to look at =
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-07 and =
comment on the IETF v6ops list. =20
Tim
