[renum] AD review draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-05

joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> Fri, 22 February 2013 05:01 UTC

Return-Path: <joelja@bogus.com>
X-Original-To: renum@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: renum@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36CE521F8ECD for <renum@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 21:01:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.485
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.485 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.114, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 r9CQXsm4ceHH for <renum@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 21:01:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA84E21F8ECC for <renum@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 21:01:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from joels-MacBook-Air.local (c-24-5-127-59.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [24.5.127.59]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r1M51r02049533 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <renum@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Feb 2013 05:01:54 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com)
Message-ID: <5126FBBC.2000704@bogus.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 21:01:48 -0800
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:19.0) Gecko/20130117 Thunderbird/19.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: renum@ietf.org
References: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D6DA094@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> <2CF4CB03E2AA464BA0982EC92A02CE2501EF60E0@BY2PRD0512MB653.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <2CF4CB03E2AA464BA0982EC92A02CE2501EF60E0@BY2PRD0512MB653.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (nagasaki.bogus.com [147.28.0.81]); Fri, 22 Feb 2013 05:01:54 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [renum] AD review draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-05
X-BeenThere: renum@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Renumbering discussion mailing list." <renum.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/renum>, <mailto:renum-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/renum>
List-Post: <mailto:renum@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:renum-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/renum>, <mailto:renum-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 05:01:56 -0000

Folks,

I took a look at

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-05

overall I think it's fairly well put-together document.

A couple things,

While it's certainly readable, a proofreader would probably tighten up 
the language a bit. There are several sentences in in 5.2 for example 
that would benefit from the addition of a preposition in strategic 
locations.

While multihoming is mentioned several times, the necessity of engaging 
in source routing or some other mechanism, e.g. logical VRFs per PA 
prefix in order to preclude black-holing of traffic while multihoming or 
while both prefixes are valid is not as far as I can tell and that seems 
to be a missing piece of the router renumbering gap analysis.

I see some discussion on the list that post-dates the latest revision 
titled Late gap in the gap analysis. Has that been resolved to the 
satisfaction of the WG?

Thanks
Joel