Re: [v6ops] WG Call For Adoption: draft-xie-v6ops-framework-md-ipv6only-underlay-05

Hi, Brian,
Thank you for your comments and suggestions, which are very helpful. Would you please see my feedback inline tagged [Chongfeng]?

xiechf@chinatelecom.cn

From: Brian E Carpenter
Date: 2022-11-28 05:41
To: v6ops
Subject: Re: [v6ops] WG Call For Adoption: draft-xie-v6ops-framework-md-ipv6only-underlay-05
This is an interesting topic and it seems useful for the WG to work on it.
[Chongfeng]: Thank you!

I have some general questions about the intent and scope of the draft. I have not done a detailed technical review.

Is the intention to describe existing deployment(s) or to propose future deployment? If it's the first case, it would be nice to have an Implementation Status section per RFC7942. If it's the second case, we'll need to be very careful about what the word "should" means
(and, assuming it's Informational, the one occurrence of SHOULD may be problematic).
[Chongfeng]: As introduced on the v6ops of IETF114 and IETF115, we already have an implementation and field trial in our production network. However, this work is still in progress. We can add an implementation status section per RFC7942 in the future. In addition, we hope that this framework can obtain more deployments in the future. 
Regarding to the occurrence of SHOULD, we will reconsider how to deal with this expression.

I have a question about scope after reading the scenarios in section 3 "Focus on IPv6-only Networks". Why do scenarios 1-3 all say "hosted in cloud data centers"? 
[Chongfeng]: Yes, they apply to servers anywhere. This will be changed, cloud data centers can be considered as an example.

Surely they should apply to servers anywhere. Also, why does scenario 4 mention "cloud"? It would apply to any data center anywhere.
[Chongfeng]: I agree with you, it would apply to any data center. We will revise this clause.

I find scenario 7 rather vague. I can't see any further references to 5G (or scenario 6, IXPs) in the draft. Which of scenarios 1-7 does the draft cover? This should probably be stated in section 3.
[Chongfeng]: This document expects to define a general IPv6-only underlay framework, which can be applied to almost all scenarios in principle. Section 7 deals with the basic process of forwarding IPv4 service data in a multi-domain IPv6-only underlay network. Of course, it can also be integrated with existing IPv6 only access schemes, e.g.  464XLAT, so that both the access and the transit core can achieve IPv6-only delivery, this case is related to 5G.

I noticed one detail in section 6.1 "Overview": the address examples 2001:db8::c000:221 etc. could be written 2001:db8::192.0.2.33 etc. That format exists precisely for cases like this.
[Chongfeng]: OK, we can consider using the address format you mentioned.

Regards
    Brian Carpenter

I express my thanks again for your comments and suggestions, I also hope that my feedback can answer your questions. I look forward to receiving more comments from you in the future.

Best regards
Chongfeng

On 19-Nov-22 10:53, Ron Bonica wrote:
> Folks,
> 
> This message initiates a WG call for adoption for draft-xie-v6ops-framework-md-ipv6only-underlay-05. To accommodate the American holiday, the call for adoption will end on December 9, 2022.
> 
>                                                         Ron
> 
> 
> Juniper Business Use Only
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
v6ops@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops