[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Fwd: I-D Action:draft-carpenter-v6ops-isp-scenarios-02.txt]
Mark,
On 2010-04-15 08:37, Mark Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 05:47:51 -0700
> Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Mohamed.
Yes, we will incorporate the substantive comments in the
next version. Some of the more editorial comments may be left
for the judgment of the RFC Editor.
>>
>> Any other comments from the working group?
>>
>
> I had a read of it yesterday, and found it interesting as a
> "current state of play".
Thanks for that
>
> One thing I was a bit confused about was the discussion regarding
> methods of assigning customers prefixes.
>
> It seemed to be listing 5 methods, or a least the people who filled in
> the survey thought there were 5 methods:
>
> 1) manual i.e. static route towards the customer
> 2) RA PIO + SLAAC
> 3) DHCPv6-PD
> 4) PPPoE (/PPP)
> 5) RADIUS
>
> The first 3 are valid as of providing downstream customers with
> address space.
>
> PPPoE/PPP isn't, because IPv6 PPP only negotiates 64 bit IIDs, one of
> the first 3 methods above have to be used after that. For people who
> answered with that, I wonder if they understand that IPv6 PPP doesn't
> work like it does in IPv4.
We really can't tell that from the answers, especially for people who
were replying about plans rather than experience.
>
> RADIUS is one of the ways to supply the prefix information to the first
> 3 methods. So unless people combined RADIUS with one of the first 3
> methods, I'd also wonder if they fully understand how you assign IPv6
> address space to downstream customers.
Ditto.
>
> Is there enough data in the survey responses to clear the above up?
In a word, no, unfortunately. This is clearly an area that needs
to be well documented in operational guidance. Whether that level of
detail belongs in a draft like draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines
is something we should discuss.
>
> It's obviously too late for this survey, however if there is one in the
> future, I think it'd be interesting to ask a bit more about how the
> person filling in the survey learnt about IPv6, what they view it as
> (i.e. just IPv4 with bigger addresses or IPv4 with improvements in a
> few areas or a new protocol that has similarities with IPv4 as well as
> other protocols), does their organisation have a formal training
> program etc. Those sorts of questions can help determine why e.g. in
> the case above, people seem to think IPv6 PPPoE/PPP works as it does in
> IPv4.
Agreed.
>
> (a minor nit, PPPoE has been abbreviated to PPoE in a few places)
OK, will fix.
Thanks
Brian + Sheng
>
> Regards,
> Mark.
>
>
>
>
>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>> From: <mohamed.boucadair@orange-ftgroup.com>
>>> Date: April 13, 2010 5:19:20 AM PDT
>>> To: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
>>> Cc: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>
>>> Subject: RE: [Fwd: I-D Action:draft-carpenter-v6ops-isp-scenarios-02.txt]
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> Please find attached my review of this document.
>>>
>>> I fully agree to publish it.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Med
>>>
>>> -----Message d'origine-----
>>> De : owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] De la part de Fred Baker
>>> Envoyà : mardi 13 avril 2010 08:12
>>> Ã : Brian E Carpenter
>>> Cc : Kurt Erik Lindqvist; IPv6 Operations
>>> Objet : Re: [Fwd: I-D Action:draft-carpenter-v6ops-isp-scenarios-02.txt]
>>>
>>> If the working group agrees, I could simply send it to the AD as informational and having been done in the context of the working group. I would like at least one content review.
>>>
>>> On Apr 12, 2010, at 8:17 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi, v6ops and chairs,
>>>>
>>>> We've revised this draft, as discussed in Anaheim, as a factual report
>>>> on the ISP survey, without adding recommendations. We believe that it's
>>>> valuable to publish in this form, and that it cannot be mistaken for
>>>> recommendations, since it doesn't make any.
>>>>
>>>> Fred and Kurtis, how should we proceed?
>>>>
>>>> Brian and Sheng
>>>>
>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>> Subject: I-D Action:draft-carpenter-v6ops-isp-scenarios-02.txt
>>>> Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 19:45:01 -0700 (PDT)
>>>> From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
>>>> Reply-To: internet-drafts@ietf.org
>>>> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
>>>>
>>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
>>>>
>>>> Title : Emerging Service Provider Scenarios for IPv6 Deployment
>>>> Author(s) : B. Carpenter, S. Jiang
>>>> Filename : draft-carpenter-v6ops-isp-scenarios-02.txt
>>>> Pages : 18
>>>> Date : 2010-04-12
>>>>
>>>> This document describes practices and plans that are emerging among
>>>> Internet Service Providers for the deployment of IPv6. They are
>>>> based on practical experience so far, as well as current plans and
>>>> requirements, reported in a survey carried out in early 2010.
>>>>
>>>> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
>>>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-carpenter-v6ops-isp-scenarios-02.txt
>>>>
>>> http://www.ipinc.net/IPv4.GIF
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *********************************
>>> This message and any attachments (the "message") are confidential and intended solely for the addressees.
>>> Any unauthorised use or dissemination is prohibited.
>>> Messages are susceptible to alteration.
>>> France Telecom Group shall not be liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified.
>>> If you are not the intended addressee of this message, please cancel it immediately and inform the sender.
>>> ********************************
>>>
>