Re: [OPSAWG] Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-lsn-deployment-01
Victor Kuarsingh <victor.kuarsingh@gmail.com> Wed, 07 November 2012 17:40 UTC
Return-Path: <victor.kuarsingh@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 372BB21F8C56 for <opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 09:40:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.25
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.25 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.349, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 82juZH0yeMlP for <opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 09:40:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-da0-f44.google.com (mail-da0-f44.google.com [209.85.210.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87B9821F8C55 for <opsawg@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 09:40:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-da0-f44.google.com with SMTP id h15so821157dan.31 for <opsawg@ietf.org>; Wed, 07 Nov 2012 09:40:30 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=user-agent:date:subject:from:to:message-id:thread-topic:in-reply-to :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=7ZXzFiIFZvzrOwC/QCFYdww4aAu/3Iv8gaOeUArFNdA=; b=fsjvdfQ888DnDFbBW7zmyH/6UDrVIxqiES9pp2pwTB7CyiWm9jXlgzUcgfHK2h08vZ Fb1zWwBpWkeksAWBw22ehOdjmR45Hgfia+cRSBWRdKf92ox1EwmIvSrKZjOBD4W1O5Za 9D18VCHNfwjK/BtBn/Jb6R9y42+aOhRLgZk4T0yiQU/ehV35hXukg6H9H/MikILiSIZ9 IC/w/iC4S8088VC6VZASTEqj/mU4qCu3ocR27+IBdj9crwdxcCj4dnaPuiObBxMEgu59 keiXuxAlc9RhybV24Hqk4ozJ3Pi6rkNmSwO7JMzIUpnXq4r6cf8W64WKMQbmO0YoASFO MSRg==
Received: by 10.66.80.65 with SMTP id p1mr8216522pax.20.1352310030369; Wed, 07 Nov 2012 09:40:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [130.129.17.203] (dhcp-11cb.meeting.ietf.org. [130.129.17.203]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id vs3sm14430592pbc.61.2012.11.07.09.40.27 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 07 Nov 2012 09:40:29 -0800 (PST)
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.10.0.110310
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 12:40:27 -0500
From: Victor Kuarsingh <victor.kuarsingh@gmail.com>
To: Christopher LILJENSTOLPE <liljenstolpe@gmail.com>, "opsawg@ietf.org" <opsawg@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <CCC00708.399D3%victor.kuarsingh@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [OPSAWG] Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-lsn-deployment-01
In-Reply-To: <8D087F35-F982-418A-A545-451FAE8BEBE3@gmail.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-lsn-deployment-01
X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List <opsawg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsawg>
List-Post: <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 17:40:44 -0000
Chris, Thanks for review. I will collect comments from the other two reviews and then make updates accordingly. If discussions are required for particular points, I will pose those to the list. Regards, Victor K On 2012-11-07 11:37 AM, "Christopher LILJENSTOLPE" <liljenstolpe@gmail.com> wrote: >Greetings all, > ></chair hat> > >I've re-reviewed this version of the draft, and think that, on balance, >it is a useful draft explaining how an operator may utilize IP VRF based >VPN's to ease the deployment o NAT44 based CGN's. There are a few >suggestions for the authors, outlined below. > >1) I would indicate that the use of a services VRF is a MAY (in IETF >parlance). I could have the services address space either in a services >VRF, or I could actually have it in my non VRF tables (reducing the >number of VRFs that I have to maintain in the network). > >2) There is an assumption that appears in the document that the use of >CGN's will increase over-time, leading to a decentralized model. I would >instead phrase it that the model could be centralized or decentralized >based on architectural, operational, or engineering requirements. As far >as CGN use growth, I would phrase it that CGN deployment will probably >follow a bell-like curve. It grows as I am adding more IPv4 customers >when I have exhausted my IPv4 public block, and then will shrink as >IPv6-only or the other transition mechanisms take hold. Forecasting a >continual growth of CGN is probably (hopefully) incorrect. > > Christopher >_______________________________________________ >OPSAWG mailing list >OPSAWG@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
- [OPSAWG] Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-lsn-deployme… Christopher LILJENSTOLPE
- Re: [OPSAWG] Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-lsn-depl… Victor Kuarsingh
- Re: [OPSAWG] Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-lsn-depl… Christopher LILJENSTOLPE
- [OPSAWG] Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-lsn-deployme… Tom Taylor