Re: [v6ops] draIn ft-ietf-v6ops-design-choices WGLC

"Ackermann, Michael" <MAckermann@bcbsm.com> Mon, 06 April 2015 23:10 UTC

Return-Path: <mackermann@bcbsm.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F09661ACE14 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Apr 2015 16:10:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4h6-YSzXNN13 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Apr 2015 16:10:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.z120.zixworks.com (mx.z120.zixworks.com [199.30.235.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 23EE21ACE11 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Apr 2015 16:10:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 127.0.0.1 (ZixVPM [127.0.0.1]) by Outbound.z120.zixworks.com (Proprietary) with SMTP id 12803102C5C for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Apr 2015 18:10:54 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from imsva2.bcbsm.com (unknown [12.107.172.81]) by mx.z120.zixworks.com (Proprietary) with SMTP id A480A133208; Mon, 6 Apr 2015 18:10:53 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from imsva2.bcbsm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA80 (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E1AF2F500E; Mon, 6 Apr 2015 19:08:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from pwn401ea105.ent.corp.bcbsm.com (unknown [10.64.102.241]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by imsva2.bcbsm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09CB42F5000; Mon, 6 Apr 2015 19:08:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from PWN401EA160.ent.corp.bcbsm.com ([fe80::fdcb:603d:469e:b1db]) by PWN401EA105.ent.corp.bcbsm.com ([fe80::f13e:83e4:1dae:5345%10]) with mapi id 14.01.0438.000; Mon, 6 Apr 2015 19:10:52 -0400
From: "Ackermann, Michael" <MAckermann@bcbsm.com>
To: "fred@cisco.com" <fred@cisco.com>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] draIn ft-ietf-v6ops-design-choices WGLC
Thread-Index: AdBwejVZflkIuUqSRyO7yHiQggoOUQ==
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2015 23:10:51 +0000
Message-ID: <4FC37E442D05A748896589E468752CAA0CDAAE66@PWN401EA160.ent.corp.bcbsm.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.64.10.35]
x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.3262-7.500.1018-21454.003
x-tm-as-result: No--41.886900-8.000000-31
x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No
x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-VPM-HOST: vmvpm01.z120.zixworks.com
X-VPM-GROUP-ID: 7c33b0be-2c78-43d0-89d2-d236061685fb
X-VPM-MSG-ID: 4e5a668a-cc87-4c7c-a867-37817ac15a33
X-VPM-ENC-REGIME: Plaintext
X-VPM-CERT-FLAG: 0
X-VPM-IS-HYBRID: 0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/FapuXyWjUBtV4ojRbNvEOtARi_w>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draIn ft-ietf-v6ops-design-choices WGLC
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2015 23:10:57 -0000

HI Fred

This will be a most beneficial document for those of us contemplating IPv6 deployments.  

A couple questions: 

1.  In Section 2.1.2, second paragraph it states that a network with a large number of link local only interfaces, can just enable an IGP on each router  and not have to assign and trace addresses on each interface.   Does this advantage apply ONLY  to router link local only interfaces? 

2.  Section 2.2.1.   Most of the text in this section seems to suggest that using link-locals for next hop addresses is the best approach.   But there are a couple situations where it is not.   And then at the end it says "Today most operators use GUA's as next hop addresses".      As a neophyte reader I was uncertain what conclusion I should draw?  

3.  Section 2.3.1.    For many of us EIGRP is the IGP of choice.     Is it not acceptable for this protocol to be included in the  Option Table?  


Once again,  a very helpful beneficial document!

Thanks

Mike



-----Original Message-----
From: v6ops [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of fred@cisco.com
Sent: Sunday, April 05, 2015 2:00 PM
To: v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-design-choices WGLC

This is to initiate a two week working group last call of http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-design-choices.  
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.

_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
v6ops@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops


The information contained in this communication is highly confidential and is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom this communication is directed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any viewing, copying, disclosure or distribution of this information is prohibited. Please notify the sender, by electronic mail or telephone, of any unintended receipt and delete the original message without making any copies.
 
 Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and Blue Care Network of Michigan are nonprofit corporations and independent licensees of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association.