Inline
> From: "Azinger, Marla" <marla.azin...@frontiercorp.com> > Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 05:39:16 -0400 > To: Fred Baker <f...@cisco.com>, IETF IPv6 Mailing List <ipv6@ietf.org> > Cc: <draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-rou...@tools.ietf.org>, > <draft-donley-ipv6-cpe-rtr-use-cases-and-r...@tools.ietf.org> > Subject: RE: Comments on IPv6 Prefix Subdelegation > > 1. Im really not sure an IETF document is really needed here. What you wrote > is an example of justification in a manner. I agree some people probably need > some papers to read that will get their minds thinking in an IPv6 sub > delegation manner, but Im not sure if this should be an IETF doc or more just > an informational paper sent to all the RIR's or posted on the NRO website. [jjmb] I think it is important to enumerate the deployment models which is a v6ops topic. The algorithm I think providing guidance related to the algorithm for implementers would be useful. > > 2. I have concern regarding the suggestions in section 2.3 Am I > interpreting this correctly that you are suggesting upstreams do OSPF over VPN > with residential customers? That is something my network wont approve. I know > there are some smaller networks that will do this, but I would suggest staying > away from suggesting this as a good way of doing things. Granted I know you > didnt say this is a "good way" to do things, but it just makes me a little > leary to even have it in the document. [jjmb] Agree in principle with the OSPF comment above. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
