Hi Nathalie, Not sure if we need to coordinate the opinions among the authors, as it was quite difficult to agree on the actual text … but I think I should go ahead …
Below in-line … with ⇒ Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: BCOP <[email protected]> en nombre de Nathalie Trenaman <[email protected]> Responder a: <[email protected]> Fecha: lunes, 3 de abril de 2017, 15:55 Para: Jan Zorz - Go6 <[email protected]> CC: <[email protected]> Asunto: Re: [bcop] IPv6 prefix delegation BCOP document available for comments and suggestions 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. 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”. ⇒ Can’t find “end-user” in the current version. I think we used end-customer and the goal was always “residential/household end-users” The abbreviation of CPE is nowhere explained or fully written. ⇒ Right, some other documents use CE. Is the same (Customer Edge or Customer Premises Equipment). We can point here to the definition at RFC7084, because this document is being updated, so if we need to clarify that (don't think so is the case, right now, but just in case), we could take the opportunity to do so ... Can we provide a link to an explanation of the Neighbor Discovery exhaustion attack? ⇒ RFC6583 maybe 3.1.3 where we mention “This method may be seen as easier to implement, but it also brings some drawbacks such as difficulties with troubleshooting”, can we make it a bit more explicit by stating that link-local addresses don’t appear in a trace route, for example? ⇒ Can write some text, of course … 3.2.1 “It should be remembered that some mechanisms use a default /48 prefix size “ Do we have examples? ⇒ Yeah, users of tunnel brokers (some delegate /48), 6to4, ULA, all them use by default /48. 3.2.3. I would make “There is a clear exception to this rule when assigning addresses in a cellular network. I n this case a /64 will need to be provided for each PDP context for cellular phones, whereas for LTE modems/routers it will still be necessary to choose a /48 or /56, in accordance with the aforementioned considerations.“ the paragraph after “assigning a /64 or smaller prefix is highly discouraged” ⇒ Ok. 4. “Static assignment means that a prefix is assigned to a customer (typically an AAA) “ What is an AAA? Try to explain abbreviations. ⇒ I’m starting to think that the target of the document is not clear. AAA is something obvious for any network operator. The document doesn’t target end-users … or I got something wrong? AAA -> Authentication, Authorization and Accounting 4.1 “The easiest way method” remove way or method. ⇒ Ok. 4.2 “If the CPE knows that the delegated prefix has changed it should send out RA packets” Write Router Advertisements. ⇒ Same as above, but we can write the complete text each time we use each abbreviation. Did the authors consider images to explain certain concepts? For example bit boundary? RIPE NCC can help with that, if you wish. ⇒ I’m fine and happy with that support, but again, who is the target for the document? Need that target all this? 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]> 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> ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
