Re: [v6ops] My review results: a few nits -- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment-05.txt

Hi Gabor,
Many thanks for your careful review, we will fix all the remaining issues in the next version of the draft.
Talk about it tomorrow.
Paolo

From: v6ops <v6ops-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Gabor LENCSE
Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2022 8:33 PM
To: v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: [v6ops] My review results: a few nits -- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment-05.txt

Dear All,

I have read the draft. (Only its main text, not the appendices.)

I feel that it is quite comprehensive, it covers a lot of aspects of IPv6 deployment and provides a good overview.

I have not found any significant issue, but only nits (see below). Perhaps a WGLC may follow.

Best regards,

Gábor

------------------ Nits ------------------

I was taking notes during reading. The majority of them are technical. For some reason unknown to me, some references did not became links in the htmlized version.

Section 2.3.

[W3Tech]

Section 3.1.

[APNIC2]

Section 3.3

[NST_1] -- should be a link
[BGR_1]  -- should be a link
[CNLABS_1] -- should be a link

Typo:
IPv6-enablesd --> IPv6-enabled

Grammar:
A poll ... show --> A poll ... shows

Section 3.3.1

DSN --> DNS

Section  4.2

[I-D.ietf-v6ops-transition-comparison] -- should be a link

   While it cannot be always the case, IPv6-only transition technologies

   such as 464XLAT require much less IPv4 public addresses

   [I-D.ietf-v6ops-transition-comparison<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment#ref-I-D.ietf-v6ops-transition-comparison>], because they make a more

   efficient usage without restricting the number of ports per

   subscriber.  This contributes to reduce troubleshooting costs and to

   remove some operational issues related to permanent black-listing of

   IPv4 address blocks when used via CGN in some services.  For example,

   Sony Play Station Network or OpenDNS imply a higher rotation of IPv4

   prefixes in CGN, until they get totally blocked, which means extra

   CAPEX in new IPv4 transfers.

What does "This" refer to?
- If it refers to 464XLAT, then I do not understand it. (Or, I think just the opposite is true: as the same public IP address and port number is ones used by a given user and then by another.)
- If it refers to MAP-E/T, then it should be made clear.

Section 7.1.1

                                                            On

   average, looking at the global statistics, the IPv6 traffic

   percentage is currently between 30% and 40% of IPv6.

Perhaps:

                                                            On

   average, looking at the global statistics, the IPv6 traffic

   percentage is currently between 30% and 40% of the traffic.

Section 7.1.3

an high percentage --> a high percentage

Section 7.2.

govern supporting --> governmental supporting

Section 7.4.1

[APNIC5] -- should be a link (twice)

                                      [APRICOT<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment#ref-APRICOT>] highlights how when a

   difference in performance exists it is often related to asymmetric

   routing issues.

Perhaps "how when" is not proper.

                    Other possible explanations for a relative latency

   difference lays on the specificity of the IPv6 header which allows

   packet fragmentation.

I do not understand this.

Section 7.4.2.

[FB] -- should be a link

Section 7.5.

                          Some hints are in the

   paper [ComputSecur<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment#ref-ComputSecur>].

Thank you for citing it. :-)

You might want to add also:

A. Al-Azzawi and G. Lencse, "Identification of the Possible Security Issues of the 464XLAT IPv6 Transition Technology", Infocommunications Journal, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 10-18, December 2021, DOI: 10.36244/ICJ.2021.4.2
Full paper in PDF<http://www.hit.bme.hu/~lencse/publications/InfocomJ_2021_4_2_Al-Azzawi.pdf>

Section 7.5.1.

[RIPE2] -- should be a link
On 3/7/2022 11:30 AM, internet-drafts@ietf.org<mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org> wrote:

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.

This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Operations WG of the IETF.

        Title           : IPv6 Deployment Status

        Authors         : Giuseppe Fioccola

                          Paolo Volpato

                          Nalini Elkins

                          Jordi Palet Martinez

                          Gyan S. Mishra

                          Chongfeng Xie

  Filename        : draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment-05.txt

  Pages           : 46

  Date            : 2022-03-07

Abstract:

   This document provides an overview of IPv6 deployment status and a

   view on how the transition to IPv6 is progressing among network

   operators and enterprises.  It also aims to analyze the related

   challenges and therefore encourage actions and more investigations in

   those areas where the industry has not taken a clear and unified

   approach.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment/

There is also an htmlized version available at:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment-05

A diff from the previous version is available at:

https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment-05

Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts

_______________________________________________

v6ops mailing list

v6ops@ietf.org<mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops