Re: [v6ops] comment on draft-liu-v6ops-ula-usage-analysis

[Jen Linkova <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 8:28 PM, Liubing (Leo) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> I got your comments. I'll consider to revise accordingly. Many thanks

Few more comments if you don't mind:

1) Section 3.1. Isolated network
"

- Prefix generation: Randomly generated according to the
      algorithms defined in [RFC4193] or literally assigned by human.
      Normally, it is recommended to following the standard way to
      automatically generate the prefixes; if there are some specific
      reasons that need to be assigned by human, the administrators must
      carefully plan the prefixes to avoid collision."

As Erik pointed out this Monday, "recommended" violates RFC4193.
In addition, I'm not sure why you are mentioning prefix generation in
"Isolated network' section only while it is applicable for all
scenarios.
Maybe it should be moved to the section 4 "General Guidelines"

2) 3.3. IPv4 Co-existence consideration
Looks like it is being discussed in another thread already - I think
you might mention 'sending ICMPv6 message back' and 'not having
default route' as options to prevent the issue.

3) 4. General Guidelines of using ULA

It would be great to emphasize the importance of randomness and of
having L bit set so fd00 prefix will be used, not fc00::
Probably (as you mentioning DNS and ACL) it might make sense to refer
to Section 4 of RFC4193 which contains some guidelines as well.

Question: you do not mention VPN usage at all. Such use case is
described in RFC4193 but do you think it might be useful to mention it
at least?
===
One typo:
"2.3. Independent address space


   ULA provides an internal address independence capability in IPv6ULA
   can be used for internal communications without having any permanent
   or only intermittent Internet connectivity."

s/IPv6ULA/IPv6. ULA/