Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-design-choices-08.txt

"Ackermann, Michael" <> Wed, 08 July 2015 15:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 603421A0011 for <>; Wed, 8 Jul 2015 08:02:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.301
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nozC8nsBZ_Q6 for <>; Wed, 8 Jul 2015 08:01:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7FF981A000D for <>; Wed, 8 Jul 2015 08:01:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (ZixVPM []) by (Proprietary) with SMTP id 1D916103173 for <>; Wed, 8 Jul 2015 10:01:54 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Proprietary) with SMTP id AC4AB1217DA; Wed, 8 Jul 2015 10:01:53 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from (unknown []) by IMSVA80 (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BF722F70BC; Wed, 8 Jul 2015 10:55:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from (unknown []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A9472F709B; Wed, 8 Jul 2015 10:55:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ([fe80::fdcb:603d:469e:b1db]) by ([::1]) with mapi id 14.01.0438.000; Wed, 8 Jul 2015 11:01:47 -0400
From: "Ackermann, Michael" <>
To: Philip Matthews <>, v6ops list <>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-design-choices-08.txt
Thread-Index: AQHQuDJV+Hpx49dFOEuzsXSTRDyQUZ3POuEAgADYyyA=
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 15:01:51 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 21:00:00 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-VPM-MSG-ID: caa4903a-aa49-40bc-94e8-21212d24742c
X-VPM-GROUP-ID: 9c9b93e6-660a-4bfe-a193-56eb7ffc9bef
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-design-choices-08.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2015 15:02:02 -0000

Thanks for the great document that Enterprises considering the serious deployment of  IPv6 will find very valuable.  

The initial sections are good in pointing out what this document does and does not address.   Also pointing out RFC's where information on areas NOT addressed can be found. 

In Section 2.1.1 the reference to RFC1918 addresses seems to suggest this is the IPv4 equivalent to ULA's.     Is this a commonly accepted concept?  

In the Chart, under Tunneled,  it says private addresses are likely a better option.   Why?  A subsequent paragraph says something about these addresses having limited visibility.   Is that the rationale?       The paragraph goes on to describe reasons why  PI space is the next best option, but the discourse seems to suggest it may be the better option.     So I come away unclear of which would be "Best".  

Is Section 2.2 intended to address end hosts, as well as Routers (Middleboxes)?   Could the answer be different in certain situations?       Also, is option "a." Dual Stack?   Is there a reason this term is avoided?  

Section 2.2.2, seems to answer a question I have had.  IPAM can/should ignore Link Local addresses.  Is this the intended conclusion?   
In general, this section has a great deal of useful information regarding the use of Link-Local-Only addresses.  

Section 2.4.1, the IGP Choice chart shows 4 Multiple Known Deployments,  but the following paragraph says 3.     Other than that,  the chart contains a lot of relevant information and should be a helpful decision tool.    I also thank you for including EIGRP and RIP, which I recall was difficult and controversial.  

Thanks again for the effort, content and quality put into this document!

-----Original Message-----
From: v6ops [] On Behalf Of Philip Matthews
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2015 5:39 PM
To: v6ops list
Subject: Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-design-choices-08.txt


Victor and I have just submitted a new revision of the Design Choices draft. There are two main changes:
1. A new section called "Addresses" that discusses the pros and cons of using PI vs. PA vs. Private addresses in your IPv6 or dual-stack network. This addresses some comments we got during the WG Last Call about using ULAs in certain situations. We consider this a significant addition to the draft.
2. Added EIGRP to the section on IGP Choice.  Some of you will recall the discussion around this on the mailing list a couple of months ago.

Victor and I have plans for more revisions to address other WG comments.  In particular, as you may remember, Victor and I have been gathering hard data from operators around the IGPs that are actually used in production networks. Unfortunately, Victor and I both got hit with other stuff in the last few weeks, so we didn't have time to add this data to the draft, or make some other planned changes. So consider this still a work-in-progress with other changes coming.

- Philip
v6ops mailing list

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.