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" <[email protected]> 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: [email protected]
