Re: [v6ops] comments on draft-xiao-v6ops-nd-deployment-guidelines

Xipengxiao <> Sat, 23 October 2021 19:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C800B3A0A5E for <>; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 12:26:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Njin0NrljpWn for <>; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 12:26:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 817E33A09E1 for <>; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 12:26:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) by (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4HcB0v0HL5z67NZm; Sun, 24 Oct 2021 03:21:51 +0800 (CST)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2308.15; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 21:26:14 +0200
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.01.2308.015; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 21:26:14 +0200
From: Xipengxiao <>
To: Michael Richardson <>
CC: "" <>
Thread-Topic: comments on draft-xiao-v6ops-nd-deployment-guidelines
Thread-Index: AQHXx2eFnJ0FjBHT70WZ10c42p8Boqvg6+bQ
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2021 19:26:12 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <462150.1634922503@dooku>
In-Reply-To: <462150.1634922503@dooku>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, 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-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] comments on draft-xiao-v6ops-nd-deployment-guidelines
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2021 19:26:24 -0000

Hi Richard,

Thank you very much for your review and feedback.  I appreciate it.

Yes we used a Word macro to prepare the draft.  We will explore the new tool that you mentioned in the future.

Regarding your comment, please see my response in line.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Richardson []
> Sent: Friday, October 22, 2021 7:08 PM
> To: Xipengxiao <>
> Cc:
> Subject: comments on draft-xiao-v6ops-nd-deployment-guidelines
> XiPeng, Some editorial comments/questions first.
> Are you using kramdown and/or xml format?  Or doing something with a Word
> macro?
> I strongly recommend using kramdown format,
> because then you upload XMLv3, and you get much more beautiful and
> readable HTML.
> What made me notice this is that "OPSECv27" reference is not linked, and that
> document is now RFC9099.
> I don't want to go through the document word for work.
> I think that this is premature.  I think that the goals of the document are clear,
> but I think that some restructuring is in order to meet the needs of what I think
> are the intended readers.  I think that intended readers are a variety of
> different operators.
> A secondary list of readers are product managers at L2/L3 switch vendors.
[XX] Yes the intended readers are operators and enterprises who need to deploy ND.  Some product managers at L2/L3 switch vendors may be interested in this draft too, as we discussed the implementation for "Unique Prefix Per Host".

> The operator would say, "I'm deploying IPv6 in my XXX network using RFFyyyy,
> method 4".  The vendor would say, "oh yes. wonderful. We support that, and
> you want to read section zzz of our manual"
> Section 2 has a lot of information, and is close, but not quite, a tutorial on each
> mechanism. Perhaps that belongs in a series of appendixes.

[XX] I feel that a review of known issues and solutions are needed, before we discuss how to select these solutions based on usage scenarios.

> I think that the better approach is to have a section two ask questions (i.e. a
> self-assessment) as to what kind of scenario they want to do.
> Some of the results might be aspirational vs actual.
> As in, "I really want to get to UPPH support, but not all my hosts are capable
> yet, so until then, I want MLSN"

[XX] I read your message 3 times, but I still don't fully understand the logic flow here.  The current logic of the draft is (1) review the known issues and solutions, in Section 2.1-2.4 (2) analyze the essence of each solution to see what mechanisms make it effective, to get some insight, in Section 2.5 (3) apply the insight to future deployment scenarios, and discuss the applicability, in Section 3.1 (4) summarize the whole practice into 4 guidelines for future ND deployers to consider, in Section 3.2.  Maybe this logic in my mind gets in the way of understanding your logic.  So if you can further elaborate your logic I will appreciate it.

> I suggest that section 3 then more about characteristics of each solution, and
> how each solution accomplishes the different goals.  The text there is good,
> but I think it should come in a different order.

[XX] What order would you suggest?  Again, I think I need to understand your logic first.

> The Security Considerations will need to do a lot more.

[XX] This draft only summarizes existing solutions, and provide guidelines on how to select them based on the usage scenarios. It introduces no new solution.  So I think it's fair for us to say it does not introduces new security issues.  What else do you think are needed?

Thank you again Michael!  I appreciate your time to review and feedback.  XiPeng