IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Comments on IPv6 Prefix Subdelegation

John Jason Brzozowski <john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com> Wed, 29 July 2009 15:33 UTC

Return-Path: <john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0563A3A6F65 for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jul 2009 08:33:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.796
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.796 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ry7o2X-vCx8O for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jul 2009 08:33:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pacdcimo01.cable.comcast.com (PacdcIMO01.cable.comcast.com [24.40.8.145]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00E733A6EA3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jul 2009 08:33:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([24.40.15.92]) by pacdcimo01.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP id 5503620.47596038; Wed, 29 Jul 2009 11:33:08 -0400
Received: from NJCHLEXCMB01.cable.comcast.com ([172.24.2.44]) by PACDCEXCSMTP03.cable.comcast.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 29 Jul 2009 11:33:09 -0400
Received: from 130.129.17.173 ([130.129.17.173]) by NJCHLEXCMB01.cable.comcast.com ([172.24.2.44]) via Exchange Front-End Server webmail.comcast.com ([24.40.8.153]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Wed, 29 Jul 2009 15:33:08 +0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.17.0.090302
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 17:33:06 +0200
Subject: Re: Comments on IPv6 Prefix Subdelegation
From: John Jason Brzozowski <john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com>
To: "Azinger, Marla" <marla.azinger@frontiercorp.com>, Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>, IETF IPv6 Mailing List <ipv6@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <C6963852.B1DBE%john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com>
Thread-Topic: Comments on IPv6 Prefix Subdelegation
Thread-Index: AcoOs0PaTL69Ji2xQ6aOggxcRluK5AAsJGuQAD+CLjY=
In-Reply-To: <2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F10485093E811@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Jul 2009 15:33:09.0630 (UTC) FILETIME=[E06889E0:01CA1061]
Cc: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router@tools.ietf.org, draft-donley-ipv6-cpe-rtr-use-cases-and-reqs@tools.ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 15:33:29 -0000

Inline


> From: "Azinger, Marla" <marla.azinger@frontiercorp.com>
> Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 05:39:16 -0400
> To: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>, IETF IPv6 Mailing List <ipv6@ietf.org>
> Cc: <draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router@tools.ietf.org>,
> <draft-donley-ipv6-cpe-rtr-use-cases-and-reqs@tools.ietf.org>
> Subject: RE: Comments on IPv6 Prefix Subdelegation
> 
> 1.  Im really not sure an IETF document is really needed here.  What you wrote
> is an example of justification in a manner.  I agree some people probably need
> some papers to read that will get their minds thinking in an IPv6 sub
> delegation manner, but Im not sure if this should be an IETF doc or more just
> an informational paper sent to all the RIR's or posted on the NRO website.
[jjmb] I think it is important to enumerate the deployment models which is a
v6ops topic.  The algorithm I think providing guidance related to the
algorithm for implementers would be useful.
> 
> 2.  I have concern regarding the suggestions in section 2.3   Am I
> interpreting this correctly that you are suggesting upstreams do OSPF over VPN
> with residential customers?  That is something my network wont approve. I know
> there are some smaller networks that will do this, but I would suggest staying
> away from suggesting this as a good way of doing things.  Granted I know you
> didnt say this is a "good way" to do things, but it just makes me a little
> leary to even have it in the document.
[jjmb] Agree in principle with the OSPF comment above.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email