Intdir last call review of draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-02

Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> Sun, 23 April 2017 07:28 UTC

Return-Path: <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65919128C81; Sun, 23 Apr 2017 00:28:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
To: int-dir@ietf.org
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org, draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host.all@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Intdir last call review of draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-02
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.50.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <149293249738.25897.290627174722663000@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 00:28:17 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/HNJzZbJa1iy6MlBiGAF-v_tEpyM>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 07:28:17 -0000

Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen
Review result: Ready with Nits

I think the document is close to ready but some more meat in still
needed. Similar type of configurations have been used in other types
of link with success. A couple of nits and questions.

Line 157: "hosts/subscribers devices connected to the provider managed
shared" is somewhat hard to parse. Does it mean to say
"hosts'/subscribers' devices.."?

RFC6106 reference need to be replaced with 8106.

Line 259: Retransmit timer is the "AdvRetransTimer" or "restrans
timer"? Be more specific here.

Section 4 talks about unicast RAs. I think it would be good to mention
also RFC6085, which allows unicasting an RA to a host on an Ethernet
link, while RAs still use layer-3 multicast addressing. Similar goal,
different approach. At least I would welcome text why RFC6085 is not
endorsed or applicable?

Section 5 gives some guidance regarding unsolicited RAs. However, it
does not say anything about PIOs, although the context of the text
seems to assume the presence of PIOs. I would mention those
explicitly.  I would also be more clear and state the unsolicited RAs
are again unicasted. At least the current text seems to assume so.

What happens when RSes get lost (all MAX_RTR_SOLICITATIONS)? 

How shared links with multiple first hop routers are supposed to work
with the recommendations of this BCP. Current text seems to be only
considering a single first hop router deployments.