[v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-design-choices-09 quick review :)
Jan Zorz <jan@go6.si> Sat, 31 October 2015 00:32 UTC
Return-Path: <jan@go6.si>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19F961ACD09 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 17:32:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QJeWhd-SOGzn for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 17:32:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.go6lab.si (mx.go6lab.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2094A1ACCF2 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 17:32:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C91F3902E6 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sat, 31 Oct 2015 01:32:14 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at go6.si
Received: from mx.go6lab.si ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.go6lab.si [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id qNiZ57h1aDcZ for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sat, 31 Oct 2015 01:32:09 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ipv6.go6.si (mail.go6.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::61]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2820E3902E4 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sat, 31 Oct 2015 01:32:09 +0100 (CET)
Received: from jan-mac.local (unknown [133.93.80.56]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jan) by ipv6.go6.si (Postfix) with ESMTP id 819AE3142E6 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sat, 31 Oct 2015 01:32:06 +0100 (CET)
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.3 ipv6.go6.si 819AE3142E6
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=go6.si; s=go6.si.private; t=1446251527; bh=Mj3bMjXje8D1QlSS84J2dNAE0psAPGv8chlPmDwp3pI=; l=1149; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=sh+myzod6JU4AVw2spPYrt+LR8VWlnD+C28kyxHbQm7AnVbgur3o+/PK+TRLL481O E9hI5/xyq92nq96BtjMF7CXPCjPTAwudY3Y55MljSZ6zQ86+ywzNkPJRsTCGEF+EmL HyM9OIgF3TJjuydPeFY8M9/PD/Q5NTTyRvu65yL0=
Message-ID: <56340C02.7040505@go6.si>
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 09:32:02 +0900
From: Jan Zorz <jan@go6.si>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: v6ops@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/mBv6Yn_rZulTLO5zCVdczwTz7No>
Subject: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-design-choices-09 quick review :)
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 00:32:20 -0000
Dear WG, authors... As promised I did a quick review of draft-ietf-v6ops-design-choices-09. I apologize for late review submission, but the -09 version came out just days ago ;) I'm not entirely happy with the ULA discussion on pages 5 and 6, but at the end you (let's say so) adequately underline the fact that folx need to strongly reconsider using ULAs in their networks. Not strong language and message enough for my personal taste, but let it be. Section 2.2.1: Option b) is feasible choice for servers in data centers because of numerous reasons - security (each server on separate /64), measurements and others. Maybe you should mention this in the text. Endpoint host has no need for that. Section 2.2.2: Hopefully you are talking just about L3 interfaces on routers. There is no clear and visible clarification of that as just "Interface" notion is used ;) End hosts also have interface and should not even think about that ;) Page 11: You can carry IPv4 also in OSPFv3 this days, so additional option would be OSPFv3/OSPFv3 See you all at v6ops WG meeting in few days ;) Cheers, Jan