Tony I think my perspective is mainly from a CPE implementers point of view. Implementations are done by many third parties some who work with operators and some who do not. Guidance in a single document would be valuable.
John +1-484-962-0060 -----Original Message----- From: Tony Finch <[email protected]> on behalf of Tony Finch <[email protected]> Date: Tuesday, November 3, 2015 at 19:00 To: Alain Durand <[email protected]> Cc: Mark Andrews <[email protected]>, Brian Haberman <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Joel Jaeggli <[email protected]>, Fred Baker <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, John Jason Brzozowski <[email protected]>, Paul Ebersman <[email protected]>, Terry Manderson <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-jjmb-sunset4-dns-forwarding-ipv4aas-00.txt >Alain Durand <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> In the particular case of the communication between the CPE and the ISP >> DNS recursive resolver, the two parties are within the same >>administrative >> authority. Thus, the need to make a BCP is much lower. This can be seen >> as simply an implementation issue. > >But there needs to be a specification for interop between the CPE and the >ISP's network, so the ISP knows which suppliers they can buy equipment >from. > >Tony. >-- >f.anthony.n.finch <[email protected]> http://dotat.at/ >Malin, Hebrides, Bailey, Fair Isle, Faeroes: South or southwest 4 or 5, >occasionally 6 at first, then becoming variable 3 or 4 later. Slight or >moderate in southeast Fair Isle, otherwise rough becoming moderate. Rain, >drizzle or showers. Good, occasionally poor. > _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
