[v6ops] Re: New WGLC for draft-ietf-v6ops-nd-considerations

[Chongfeng Xie <[e-mail]>]

Hi Xipeng and all,
This draft illustrates the issues of ND and also gives the mitigation guidlines,  I think it is useful for the network operation and support its publication. However, I have the following editorial comments after my review.

~~~~~~~~~
Section 1, 
   [Chongfeng]:  Since there was no any mention of ULA before this sentence in this draft, so I think it it better to delete"This procedure is the same for Unique Local Address (ULA) DAD. GUA DAD and ULA DAD are not further distinguished for simplicity of description."

Section 1.1: 
           [Chongfeng]: Regarding to the terminology of MAC, it is unnecessary to mention "To avoid confusion with Link-Local Address (LLA)," it should be deleted.

Section 2,
    [Chongfeng]: I think NCE should be expanded when it first appears in this draft.

Section 2.1:
Old text/:
        Router's address resolution for hosts: in a network of N hosts,
        there can be N such multicast messages. This may cause
        performance issues when N is large.
New text/: 
          Router's address resolution for hosts: in a L2 network of N hosts,
        there can be N such multicast messages. This may cause
        performance issues when N is large.

Old text/:
        Hosts address resolution for hosts: in a network of N hosts,
        there can be N-square such multicast messages. This may cause
        performance issues when N is large.

New text/: 
     . Hosts address resolution for hosts: in a L2 network of N hosts,
        there can be N-square such multicast messages. This may cause
        performance issues when N is large.

Section 2.3, 
the router will create a large amount of NCEs in INCOMPLETE state while trying
        to resolve the MAC addresss.

 s/ addresss/addresses
 s/a large number of/large number of     

Section 2.3,
P2MP: all hosts on an access device, e.g. the Optical Line
        Terminal (OLT), are in a P2MP link with the router.

[Chongfeng]: OLT has be widely used in the case of P2P link per host, so it is not specific to P2MP,  therefore the example of OLT can be moved.

Section 2.3
Regarding to the statement of "multicast messages may be sent at the  lowest modulation rate.", is there any supportive technical evidence?

Section 4:
    [Chongfeng]： Since the abstract mentions that "guideline is provided for selecting a suitable isolation method to prevent potential ND issues" ,  so I think that it is better to change the title of section 4 into "Guidlines of prevention of Potential ND Issues."
~~~~~~~~~~~~


Best regards
Chongfeng


 
From: Xipengxiao
Date: 2024-09-09 21:28
To: Xipengxiao; IPv6 Operations
CC: [e-mail]
Subject: [v6ops] Re: New WGLC for draft-ietf-v6ops-nd-considerations
Hi folks,
 
We would appreciate your review and comments on this draft.  Thank you.
 
XiPeng 
 
From: Xipengxiao <xipengxiao=[e-mail]> 
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2024 11:33 AM
To: IPv6 Operations <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>
Subject: New WGLC for draft-ietf-v6ops-nd-considerations
 
Hi folks,
 
The following changes have been made in draft-ietf-v6ops-nd-considerations to address our AD Warren’s comments.  Because the changes are relatively big, we decide to redo the WGLC.  It starts today and will end on Sept 12.  Please review and comment.  Thank you very much.  
 
1.               Changed the title to “Neighbor Discovery Considerations in IPv6 Deployments”. 
2.               Moved the issue-solution Table from the end of Section 3 to the beginning of Section 3.  This way, the table immediately follows the summary of issues at the end of Section 2, and readers can quickly find out what mitigation solutions are available for which issues.  
3.               Significantly simplified Section 4 by removing the detailed procedures for selecting an isolation method, keeping only the applicability analysis and a simple guideline.   
4.               Modified the Abstract, Introduction and Terminology sections to match the new changes.
 
Ron, Nick & XiPeng 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: IETF Secretariat <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2024 11:06 AM
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: IETF WG state changed for draft-ietf-v6ops-nd-considerations
 
 
The IETF WG state of draft-ietf-v6ops-nd-considerations has been changed to "In WG Last Call" from "WG Document" by XiPeng Xiao:
 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-nd-considerations/