Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org> writes:
- IPv6 support, native or tunnel to tunnelbroker.net type thing.
This is far too diffuse. You'll get a "yes, we've got IPv6". You should at least add - IPv6 packet filtering and policy management (at least simple access lists) - DHCPv6-PD client running over PPP or ethernet (possibly bridged DSL) WAN interface(s) - Ability to split the delegated prefix into a /64 for every LAN and loopback interface, preferably fully configurable - Configurable RA on LAN interfaces, using the dynamically allocated prefixes - (wishlist) configurable ifid's on the LAN and loopback interfaces as an alternative to using EUI-64 - WAN link addressing using whatever is available of SLAAC, DHCPv6 IA_NA or link local. Specifically: Using SLAAC for the WAN link should be possible without sacrificing any router functionality on the CPE. and probably a lot more. DNS resolver handling needs a chapter on it's own.... 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. Bjørn