[Gen-art] Review: draft-garcia-shim6-applicability-03
"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Sat, 18 February 2012 20:12 UTC
Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2331F21F847A for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Feb 2012 12:12:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.265
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KspymFQPa9vA for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Feb 2012 12:12:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from morbo.mail.tigertech.net (morbo.mail.tigertech.net [67.131.251.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D22321F8473 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Sat, 18 Feb 2012 12:12:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailc2.tigertech.net (mailc2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.156]) by morbo.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F8FACD011 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Sat, 18 Feb 2012 12:12:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailc2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72F071BC78FE; Sat, 18 Feb 2012 12:12:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at c2.tigertech.net
Received: from [172.17.114.244] (207.47.24.2.static.nextweb.net [207.47.24.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailc2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3B7341BC78FB; Sat, 18 Feb 2012 12:12:57 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4F400646.60906@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 15:12:54 -0500
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: gen-art@ietf.org
References: <4F3D931C.1000101@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F3D931C.1000101@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>, draft-garcia-shim6-applicability@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [Gen-art] Review: draft-garcia-shim6-applicability-03
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 20:12:58 -0000
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-garcia-shim6-applicability-03 Applicability Statement for the Level 3 Multihoming Shim Protocol (Shim6) Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern Review Date: 18-Feb-2012 IETF LC End Date: 14-March-2012 IESG Telechat date: N/A Summary: This document is almost ready for publication as an information rfc Major issues: The third paragraph of the introduction makes assertions about PI based multihoming being "not generally available to end sites due to a strict policy of route aggregation in the DFZ." As far as I know, this is simply not the case. RIRs sell IPv6 PI for reasonable fees. Most operators accept PI advertisements from customers. And those advertisements are passed on to other ISP, and accepted. I would recommend removal of the first sentence of this paragraph. Instead, it needs to be noted that PI based multihoming can be done with IPv6, and then point to the scaling concerns. Moderate Issues: I am unable to understand the sentence "Shim6 has no means to enforce neither host nor network forwarding for a given locator to be used as source address." I presume that what it is intended to communicate is simply a fact about shim6. Please rewrite. If I am reading section 7.1.1 on MobileIPv6/Shim6 interaction, it looks like you are describing a scenario in which the mobile node uses multiple HOAs as locators with a correspondent node. I would suggest that this section would be clearer if the communicating parties were identified. I suspect that the intended behavioral assumption is that the mobile node will register its CoA multiple times, once with each home address. But this does not seem to be stated explicitly. Minor issues: In th long comparative paragraph in the introduction, "The Shim6 approach is thought to have better scaling properties with respect to the state held in the DFZ than the IPv approach." Could "IPv 4 approach be replaced with "PI approach"? In section 7.7 on the interaction with NPT66, I think it would be helped by a bit more discussion of when certain shim6 messages are exchanged, and which fields are validated. Specifically, I can not tell if it is ever possible to get a shim6 ULID-pair option through an NPT66 which is rewriting the one of the addresses prefixes in the packet. I suspect not. If indeed it just won't work, this needs to be stated MUCH more clearly. Yours, Joel M. Halpern Nits/editorial comments:
- [Gen-art] A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - 2012… A. Jean Mahoney
- [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-core-link-format-11 Joel M. Halpern
- [Gen-art] Review: draft-garcia-shim6-applicabilit… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [Gen-art] Review: draft-garcia-shim6-applicab… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Gen-art] Review: draft-garcia-shim6-applicab… Alberto García
- Re: [Gen-art] [core] Review: draft-ietf-core-link… Zach Shelby
- Re: [Gen-art] [core] Review: draft-ietf-core-link… Cullen Jennings
- Re: [Gen-art] [core] Review: draft-ietf-core-link… Zach Shelby