On 03/04/2017 15:55, Nathalie Trenaman wrote:
Hi Jan,
Great doc, and very readable. Thanks to all the authors for their input.
I went over the doc with the eyes of a newbie to this stuff and found
some areas for clarification.
Hi Nathalie,
Thank you for review, much appreciated!!!
In section 3, we mention "end-user" for the first time, without
explaining what an end-user is in this context.. In our courses we have
to make that explanation sooner than later, because different audiences
read different things in the word “end-user”...
<snip/snap>
4.2
“If the CPE knows that the delegated prefix has changed it should send
out RA packets”
Write Router Advertisements.
Agree.
I implemented in the document majority of the above suggestions, thnx
again for making this document better!
Did the authors consider images to explain certain concepts? For example
bit boundary? RIPE NCC can help with that, if you wish.
Should we? Isn't teaching the subnetting a little bit out of the scope
of this document? Or would you like to replace the existing attempts to
show the nibble boundaries in the document?
Cheers and thnx, Jan
I hope this input is useful.
Thanks again!
Nathalie Künneke-Trenaman
IPv6 Program Manager
RIPE NCC
On 27 Mar 2017, at 15:30, Jan Zorz - Go6 <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Dear RIPE BCOP community,
As promised at last RIPE meeting in Madrid, we produced a first draft of
"Best Current Operational Practice for operators: IPv6 prefix assignment
for end-users - static (stable) or dynamic (non-stable) and what size to
choose."
The aim of this document is to document the best current operational
practice on what size of IPv6 prefix ISPs should assign/delegate to
their customers and should they delegate it in a stable, static way or
should it change over time.
Please find the PDF attached and also accessible at:
https://www.sinog.si/docs/draft-IPv6pd-BCOP-v1.pdf
We are submitting this document to RIPE BCOP TF (here) to check if
this is a
real best operational practice and get consensus on it. We are also
submitting this document to RIPE IPv6 WG to check the technical validity
of the document and also get consensus on it.
Please, read the document and send back comments to this mailing list.
All feedback is more than welcome.
On behalf of co-authors, Jan Žorž
P.S: This document is not intended to document what practices may
be in future and what they might look like, but to reflect the best
methods of implementing IPv6 at the time of publication. Updates to this
document will be published to reflect changes in best current practices
where there are developments in standards and implementations.
<draft-IPv6pd-BCOP-v1.pdf>
