Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-icp-guidance WGLC

[Cameron Byrne <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 10:29 PM, Fred Baker (fred) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> This is to open a two week Working Group last Call on
>
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-icp-guidance
>   "IPv6 Guidance for Internet Content and Application Service Providers",
>   Brian Carpenter, Sheng Jiang, 10-Jul-12
>
> Please read it now. We are interested in, among other things, technical commentary on the draft and the working group's perception on its usefulness to its target audience.

Useful.

Support.

Few technical comments here, few editorial comments sent direct to authors

Does this exist in the "real world"  ?

"An ICP that has multiple connections via multiple ISPs will have
   multiple PA prefixes.  This results in multiple PA-based addresses
   for the servers, or for load balancers if they are in use."

It seems like NPTv6 is a much more modern approach that is much more
likely to be deployed ... or some method involving the load balancers
doing a proxy / load balancing function for the new and legacy prefix.

It would also be good to reference RA Guard (rfc 6105), ND Cache
issues (RFC6583),  p2p /127 (RFC 6164)

It might also be prudent to mention that proxies are commonly
implemented in load balancers.  Nearly all load balancers i know of
have an Ipv6 to ipv4 proxy function (including Amazon ELB)

12.  Operations and Management -- might be worth noting that many
large entities have not fully made IPv6 work just like IPv4 in OAM...
and in many cases, some hashing or aliasing is used to represnt the
128 bit IPv6 address into the legacy IPv4 data base field.  This is
not what people should do, but this is what many "IPv6 leaders" have
done to make IPv6 work without boiling the ocean in terms of project
costs and timelines.