Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-design-choices-02.txt

Mikael:

Victor and I re-reviewed section 2.1.1 in light of your comments. 
Your basic point, that at some times it is necessary to have IPv4 and IPv6 on different VLANs, is the whole point of this section, and neither of us could think of anything useful to add to this section to expand on it more without making the section extremely long.

However, if you have some suggested text, or additional points to add, then please send them to us.

Philip

On 2014-09-09, at 3:36 , Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:

> On Thu, 4 Sep 2014, Philip Matthews wrote:
> 
>> Thanks in advance for any comments, and sorry that we have been a bit slow in updating the draft.
> 
> Hi,
> 
> In 2.1.1, I'd like to see some text talking about methods where IPv4 and IPv6 can be separated by means of protocol based vlans, so end system complexity isn't increased, it's only a network change. This way IPv4 and IPv6 can have different topology, so that IPv4 choices don't have to affect IPv6 choices. In light of recent talk about IPv6 multicast and privacy addressing causing problems in networks, we should give guidance pointing to the problems of having very large L2 domains.
> 
> One article:
> 
> http://blog.bimajority.org/2014/09/05/the-network-nightmare-that-ate-my-week/
> 
> -- 
> Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> 