It’s in 4.4 (routers and L3 switches).  Does it need to be in 4.1, Hosts?

Tim

> On 25 Nov 2021, at 14:43, Dave Taht <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> yes please.
> 
> On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 3:36 AM Tim Chown <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 23 Nov 2021, at 16:41, Dave Taht <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 8:31 AM Tim Chown <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Dave,
>>>> 
>>>>> On 23 Nov 2021, at 16:09, Dave Taht <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> It is perhaps selfish of me to really want active queue management, of
>>>>> some form, as part of specifications for new equipment.
>>>>> 
>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7567/
>>>> 
>>>> I would agree, but this doc is IPv6 requirements, while the RFC is 
>>>> generally applicable to v4 or v6?
>>> 
>>> It's an and, not an or.
>>> 
>>> Additionally useful treatments of the ipv6 flow header, and the
>>> diffserv & ecn bits, the ability to shape or police traffic, would be
>>> nice to have in a document that talks to the properties of switches
>>> and routers.
>> 
>> So we could for example in Section 4 in Optional at least add
>> 
>>        • Active Queue Management support [RFC7567]
>> 
>> ?
>> 
>> (Where AF and EF are listed for QoS)
>> 
>> Tim
>> 
>>> 
>>>> Tim
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 7:38 AM Tim Chown via ipv6-wg <[email protected]> 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi Eric,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Many thanks for your comments, we’ve updated the ‘living draft’ at
>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/10HsfHDOIhUPIvGk9WP0azJiIsMVzQ49RsqWfnbNtceI/edit#
>>>>>> And attached as PDF.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> In-line...
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 5 Nov 2021, at 07:52, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[email protected]> 
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Tim*2, Sander, Jan, and Merike,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> First of all, thank you for taking the pen to update this document. As 
>>>>>>> you kindly asked for comments, here are some
>>>>>>> - page 2: 'fairly recent' won't age well ;-)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Removed.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> - page 4: all requirements are limited to performance, but should it 
>>>>>>> also include telemetry/monitoring ? Or is it implicit in the list of 
>>>>>>> RFC ?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Agreed - we added mention of capabilities in a couple of places.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> - page 4: what about systems to handle VMs and containers ?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Out of scope.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> - page 4: mobile devices have a *big difference* with normal host 
>>>>>>> though as they often have multiple interfaces active at the same time.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> True, but out of scope.  The document is about their connectivity to the 
>>>>>> enterprise infrastructure.  We could note this, but currently do not.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> - page 4: should we assume that Wi-Fi access points are 'normal layer-2 
>>>>>>> switches' ?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Added text to say consider as L2 consumer switch, see Section 3.1.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> - page 6: I am surprised to see RFC 8415 DHCPv6 client as mandatory…
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Fair comment, as this could be something contentious.  The only way we 
>>>>>> can think to avoid that is to include the DHCPv6 requirements 
>>>>>> conditionally, ie. “IF you need DHCPv6 then…” those requirements are 
>>>>>> required.  So networks deploying with just RA for address configuration 
>>>>>> can avoid that.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> - page 6: if not mistaken RFC 8200 now includes RFC 5722 and RFC 8021 
>>>>>>> (so no need to add the latter in the requirements)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Deleted 5722 and 8021.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> - page 7: same surprise to see all DHCP-related requirements
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Also made into an “If DHCPv6 is needed then”
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> - page 7 and other: nice to list some MIB but I would expect some YANG 
>>>>>>> modules as well for enterprise/ISP devices
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> RFC8504 covers this in16.2, should we say the same words here, as 
>>>>>> optional in each section?
>>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8504#section-16.2
>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> - page 9: should Jen's RFC 9131 be added as optional ?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Can do, in which sections?   Presumably 4.1 and 4.4?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Best wishes,
>>>>>> Tim
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or 
>>>>>> change your subscription options, please visit: 
>>>>>> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-wg
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> I tried to build a better future, a few times:
>>>>> https://wayforward.archive.org/?site=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icei.org
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> I tried to build a better future, a few times:
>>> https://wayforward.archive.org/?site=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icei.org
>>> 
>>> Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> I tried to build a better future, a few times:
> https://wayforward.archive.org/?site=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icei.org
> 
> Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your 
subscription options, please visit: 
https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-wg

Reply via email to