Re: [Gen-art] Gen-Art review of draft-ietf-opsawg-lsn-deployment-04

[Victor Kuarsingh <[e-mail]>]

Martin,

I am loading a new new version today, but here is that section (originally
called "Motivation") for quick review.

** Beginning of section **

Existing Network Considerations (new name of section)

The selection of CGN may be made by an operator based on a number of
factors. The overall driver to use CGN may be the depletion of IPv4 address
pools which leaves little to no addresses for a growing IPv4 service or
connection demand growth. IPv6 is considered the strategic answer for IPv4
address depletion; however, the operator may independently decide that CGN
is needed to supplement IPv6 and address their particular IPv4 service
deployment needs.

If the operator has chosen to deploy CGN, they should do this in a manner
as not to negatively impact the existing IPv4 or IPv6 subscriber base. This
will include solving a number of challenges since subscribers whose
connections require translation will have network routing and flow needs
which are different from legacy IPv4 connections.

** End of section **

regards,

Victor K



On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Martin Thomson
<[e-mail]>wrote:

> On 22 January 2014 13:00, Benoit Claise <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Is your concern that  the sentence "IPv6 is considered the strategic
> answer"
> > in section 2 is not stressed enough?
>
>
> I think that the text in the second paragraph is slightly more loaded.
>  In particular,
>
>    These issues
>    leave an operator in a precarious position which may lead to the
>    decision to deploy CGN.
>
> The rest of the section uses similarly loaded:
>
>    The ability to replace IPv4-only equipment may be out of the control
>    of the operator, and even when it's in the administrative control, it
>    poses both cost and technical challenges as operators build out
>    massive programs for equipment retirement or upgrade.
>
> "precarious position", "poses both cost and technical challenges", ...
> all arguably true, but not strictly neutral.
>