Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3316bis WGLC

[Ray Hunter <[e-mail]>]

I have read this document. I cant say that I support it.

IMHO it's too time specific and too version specific, without proving
added value and general guidance.

On the one hand there are requirements to implement a kludge to cope
with historical limitations in mobile networks and the fact the gateway
could only handle a single prefix route (RFC6603), whereas every other
network I know of easily handles numbering of the link "to the site"
without this.

On the other hand there isn't a requirement for something really basic
in the IPv6 vision, like BCP 157, so that a device can always be
provided with enough addresses/prefixes to properly number all of its
interfaces using SLAAC without resorting to workarounds like
draft-ietf-v6ops-64share-04.

I therefore question what this document adds above and beyond reading
the detailed 3gpp version releases/ specs, and why the IETF should
publish this document at all.

regards,
RayH

Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
> This is to initiate a two week working group last call of http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3316bis. Please read it now. If you find nits (spelling errors, minor suggested wording changes, etc), comment to the authors; if you find greater issues, such as disagreeing with a statement or finding additional issues that need to be addressed, please post your comments to the list.
>
> We are looking specifically for comments on the importance of the document as well as its content. If you have read the document and believe it to be of operational utility, that is also an important comment to make
>
> draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3316bis idnits
>
>
>
>