Re: [renum] draft-ietf-6renum-enterprise: review

Ronald Bonica <> Tue, 11 December 2012 17:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C278E21F8440 for <>; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 09:54:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.139
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.139 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.273, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_48=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, UNRESOLVED_TEMPLATE=3.132, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8R3OC-tgougw for <>; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 09:54:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A38AE21F843D for <>; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 09:54:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) (using TLSv1) by ([]) with SMTP ID; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 09:54:44 PST
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 09:54:36 -0800
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.355.2; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 09:54:35 -0800
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 09:56:43 -0800
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server id; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 17:54:28 +0000
Received: from mail154-ch1 (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AF5B401C5 for <>; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 17:54:28 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); (null);; R:internal; EFV:INT
X-SpamScore: -21
X-BigFish: PS-21(zz9371Ic85fhzz1de0h1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ahzz16d858h1033IL17326ah8275bh8275dh18c673hz2dh2a8h668h839hd25hf0ah1288h12a5h12bdh137ah1441h1504h1537h153bh15d0h162dh1631h1758h1155h)
Received: from mail154-ch1 (localhost.localdomain []) by mail154-ch1 (MessageSwitch) id 1355248466852464_25885; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 17:54:26 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDBD740005A; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 17:54:26 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 17:54:26 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.16.0245.002; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 17:54:19 +0000
From: Ronald Bonica <>
To: Benoit Claise <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-6renum-enterprise: review
Thread-Index: AQHN18RpJZpCsEsViU2iQ4MemitA0JgT3x+A
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 17:54:19 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_2CF4CB03E2AA464BA0982EC92A02CE2501DCE108BY2PRD0512MB653_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [renum] draft-ietf-6renum-enterprise: review
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Renumbering discussion mailing list." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 17:54:46 -0000


Because the document attracted similar comments from another AD, I have removed the document from Thursday's telechat so that the WG could take whatever time it needed to discuss the matter.

If we decided to move forward with this document, as is, I will put it back on the next telechat agenda.

Authors, could I ask you to respond to Benoit?


From: Benoit Claise []
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 12:24 PM
Cc: Ronald Bonica
Subject: draft-ietf-6renum-enterprise: review

Dear all,

I've been reviewing draft-ietf-6renum-enterprise

I have a concern with this document. Not really an objection in the form of a DISCUSS, but ...
>From the charter, I believe that this document fits the following:
1. To undertake scenario descriptions, including documentation of
current capability inventories and existing BCPs, for enterprise
networks, including managed and unmanaged elements. These texts should
contribute towards a gap analysis and provide an agreed basis for
subsequent WG rechartering towards development of solutions (which may
be more appropriate for other WGs to undertake) and improved practices.
Operator input will be of high value for this text.
Reading this reading, I asked myself: what is the specific scope of this document? I see a mix of scenarios, listing of the existing solutions, best current practices, etc... and I'm wondering where this document fits in all the IPv6 documents renumbering documents: RFC 5887, this document, Enterprise IPv6 Deployment Guidelines draft-ietf-v6ops-enterprise-incremental-ipv6-01, rfc4192, etc...
By "etc", I mean searching for "renum" in
It seems that many of these documents have the same type of content. Too many actually. Don't get me wrong, there is good text in this document.

Bottom line: if someone is interested in renumbering, what is the ordered list of documents to be read, with the respective content. My conclusion is that there will be a lot of overlap. I would happy to stand corrected.

Btw, this document title mentions "guidelines", while BCP is mentioned all over.

Note: I did my home trying to find the answer: read RFC 5887, listened to the IETF 85 meeting recording, etc...

- A side note!question, and I'm not sure it has to be addressed by this draft, but one day, I would like to find an answer.
How does a NMS do a discovery of a pure IPv6 network? With something better than ping sweep obviously...

Section 1, paragraph 1

   PI space is not always available

   for enterprises Therefore, it is desirable to develop mechanisms that

   simplify IPv6 renumbering.
Missing a "."

Section 1, paragraph 1

   However, widespread use of PI might

   create serious BGP4 scaling problems
A reference, or a small explanation, would be welcome

Regards, Benoit