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

[Victor Kuarsingh <[e-mail]>]

Mikael,

The top portion of the text (in section 2.1.1) describes the concept of 
using two links or two Vlans to separate traffic.

The option of separating IPv4 and IPv6 on links (logical or physical) is 
set as option (b).  We have a brief discussion on the last paragraph on 
some reasons to choose this.  Now before we action any changes, there is 
discussion in the last paragraph which talks about limitations on 
network equipment and device-specific limitations.

If you don't feel that this text is sufficient, then which of the 
following approaches do you think would best get the point across.

(1).  Have a new paragraph(s) which highlight option (b) more and then 
provide a listing of pros/cons (where the pros can then point to items 
you wanted addressed)

(2). Extend the last paragraph to list the issues you highlighted


On that point, these issues will be arguably temporary and resolve over 
time, so if we did highlight issues as noted in the article you listed, 
we should also note that these problems are part of the maturing process 
(no?).

regards,

Victor K


On 2014-09-09, 3:36 AM, 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/ 
>
>