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

[Philip Matthews <[e-mail]>]

Mikael:

I agree that the discussion of option (b) in section 2.1.1 could be improved.

It would be helpful if you could send some points that you would like included.  We can then draft something and sent it out.

Philip


On 2014-09-09, at 9:12 , Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:

> On Tue, 9 Sep 2014, Victor Kuarsingh wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Well, from end system point of view, it's a single vlan, it doesn't need to understand the two vlans. So this is somewhat of in-between.
> 
>> 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)
> 
> I think this is the approach I would prefer. Try to give examples how it can be done and pros and cons so the implementor can make an informed choice.
> 
> -- 
> Mikael Abrahamsson    email: [e-mail]
>