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

[Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>]

WFM

On 22 January 2014 23:22, Victor Kuarsingh <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 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.
>
>