Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6inixp-04.txt WGLC

[Mark Smith <ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org>]

Hi,

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 08:00:11 -0800
Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> wrote:

> This is to initiate a two week working group last call of draft-ietf- 
> v6ops-v6inixp-04.txt. Please read it now. If you find nits (spelling  
> errors, minor suggested wording changes, etc), comment to the authors;  
> if you find greater issues, such as disagreeing with a statement or  
> finding additional issues that need to be addressed, please post your  
> comments to the list.
> 

I think this text needs to be changed in Section 3, Addressing Plan.

"IXPs will normally use manual address configuration.  Address prefix
   between /64 and /127 are technically feasible [RFC4291]."

RFC4291 says 

" For all unicast addresses, except those that start with the binary
   value 000, Interface IDs are required to be 64 bits long and to be
   constructed in Modified EUI-64 format."

If people wish to use longer than /64s, that is up to them. However I
think that the text in this draft implies, by referring to RFC4291 the
way it does, that this is supported in the IPv6 Addressing Archtecture.
I'd suggest something like the following:

"IXPs will normally use manual address configuration. The IPv6
ADdressing Architecture [RFC4291] requires that interface identifiers
are 64 bits in size for prefixes starting with binary 000, resulting in
a maximum prefix length of /64. Longer prefix lengths up to /127 have
been used operationally. If prefix lengths longer than 64 bits are
chosen, the implications described in [RFC3627] need to be considered."


> We are looking specifically for comments on the importance of the  
> document as well as its content. If you have read the document and  
> believe it to be of operational utility, that is also an important  
> comment to make.
> 

I think it is a good document. Anything that helps people avoid
duplicating the effort of working out how to deploy IPv6 is important.