Re: Comments on IPv6 Prefix Subdelegation

[John Jason Brzozowski <john_brzozowski at cable.comcast.com>]

Inline


> From: "Azinger, Marla" <marla.azinger at frontiercorp.com>
> Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 05:39:16 -0400
> To: Fred Baker <fred at cisco.com>, IETF IPv6 Mailing List <ipv6 at ietf.org>
> Cc: <draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router at tools.ietf.org>,
> <draft-donley-ipv6-cpe-rtr-use-cases-and-reqs at tools.ietf.org>
> Subject: RE: Comments on IPv6 Prefix Subdelegation
> 
> 1.  Im really not sure an IETF document is really needed here.  What you wrote
> is an example of justification in a manner.  I agree some people probably need
> some papers to read that will get their minds thinking in an IPv6 sub
> delegation manner, but Im not sure if this should be an IETF doc or more just
> an informational paper sent to all the RIR's or posted on the NRO website.
[jjmb] I think it is important to enumerate the deployment models which is a
v6ops topic.  The algorithm I think providing guidance related to the
algorithm for implementers would be useful.
> 
> 2.  I have concern regarding the suggestions in section 2.3   Am I
> interpreting this correctly that you are suggesting upstreams do OSPF over VPN
> with residential customers?  That is something my network wont approve. I know
> there are some smaller networks that will do this, but I would suggest staying
> away from suggesting this as a good way of doing things.  Granted I know you
> didnt say this is a "good way" to do things, but it just makes me a little
> leary to even have it in the document.
[jjmb] Agree in principle with the OSPF comment above.