Re: [OPSAWG] Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-lsn-deployment-01

You are welcome.

	Chris
On 07Nov2012, at 09.40, Victor Kuarsingh <victor.kuarsingh@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> 
> 