I know I might be late to this, but Warren asked if I’d give this a review. Overall, the draft is clear, and I particularly appreciated some of the operational call outs peppered throughout. I think this should move forward for publication.
That said, I wonder if this isn’t a draft that might benefit from a consolidated Operational Considerations section per the BCP we’re forming in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-opsarea-rfc5706bis/. A couple specific things that might be included are: * A stronger emphasis on the need for an IPv4 address on routers to aid with debugging (beyond what is stated around traceroute). Additionally, it might also be helpful to explicitly state that, even with the extended-icmp-nodeid draft, existing traceroute tools will still show 192.0.0.8, requiring updates to diagnostic tools. * The document describes the technical changes to routing tables and forwarding planes. It would be beneficial to acknowledge that existing NMSes, monitoring tools, scripts, etc. will almost certainly require updates to properly display, manage, and interpret v4-via-v6 routes and their associated IPv6 next-hops. I’m thinking back my days supporting Cisco NMSes that did routing-based discovery. This would throw them off the same way NAT did. Joe
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
