> > On 1/7/2011 2:53 PM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote: > > It is imperative that the draft specify what basic IPv6 functionalities > > must be supported on every node. > > I'm not sure what that means, though. Nobody would *require* a router to > support a GUI for management, but, IMO, if the GUI supplied works only > for IPv4, it's a killer. > > Yes, there ought to be a list of IPv6 requirements, ala RFCs 1122, 1123, > and 1812 (and their supplementary RFCs).
See rfc4294, IPv6 Node Requirements, and draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-router, Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers, both of which are cited in draft-george. Including requirements by reference is the right way to go, here. If there are additional requirements, they should be in separate drafts updating those requirements documents. > But there's a broader issue - > the point that "if IPv4 is supported better, in any way, than IPv6, on a > device, then there is incentive to not use IPv6". If IPv6 isn't supported at all, it doesn't matter what the incentive is. I believe there is consensus that NAT66 should not be defined, or on by default (I don't see it in the BEHAVE charter, for instance). Therefore, requiring NAT66 is equivalent to prohibiting IPv6. Lee _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
