g
> Subject: RE: [OPSEC] Review of draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-05
>
> Our biweekly chair call is next week, We will place this document on the
> agenda at that time.
>
> Brgds,
> G/
>
> -Original Message-
> From: OPSEC [mailto:opsec-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
I see these efforts as parallel and not exclusive.
G/
-Original Message-
From: Michael Behringer (mbehring)
Sent: 06 January 2014 17:53
To: Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve); Warren Kumari
Cc: opsec@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [OPSEC] Review of draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-05
I suppose best to
: [OPSEC] Review of draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-05
> From: Warren Kumari [mailto:war...@kumari.net]
> Sent: 06 January 2014 17:38
> [...]
> Sorry for the large delay in responding -- vacations and similar made
> this scroll off the bottom of the mailbox / todo pile...
>
> Yup
> From: Warren Kumari [mailto:war...@kumari.net]
> Sent: 06 January 2014 17:38
> [...]
> Sorry for the large delay in responding -- vacations and similar made this
> scroll off the bottom
> of the mailbox / todo pile...
>
> Yup, that covers it well enough for me... would be even better if y'all
Behringer (mbehring)
> > Cc: Warren Kumari; Dobbins, Roland; opsec@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [OPSEC] Review of draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-05
> [...]
> > I have read all the versions of this document and think that the tone has
> > greatly improved, but feel that section 2.
Warren, [sorry for late reply]
> -Original Message-
> From: Warren Kumari [mailto:war...@kumari.net]
> Sent: 04 December 2013 18:16
> To: Michael Behringer (mbehring)
> Cc: Warren Kumari; Dobbins, Roland; opsec@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [OPSEC] Review of draft-ietf
On 12/3/13, 10:54 AM, Ronald Bonica wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Reading through Sections 2.2 and 2.3 of this document, I question
> whether the benefits of numbering router interfaces from link-local
> address space actually outweigh the cost. The document lists the
> following as benefits:
>
> 1) Smalle
should now be able to say for his network: this advantage
> > > > doesn't make much difference to me; the other one does. This
> > > > caveat does apply to me, the other one not. And you're making
> > > > those calls below; my point would be: We've seen
On Dec 4, 2013, at 4:06 AM, Michael Behringer (mbehring)
wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: OPSEC [mailto:opsec-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dobbins,
>> Roland
>> Sent: 04 December 2013 02:48
>> To: opsec@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [OPSEC] Re
this
> > > draft that it's hard to get global consensus on those.
> > >
> > > So I suggest we keep the document factual, and let operators make
> > > their own choices. This is what the document should achieve. It
> > > should not make a judgement on the value
make a judgement on the value of any aspects, because those would
> > be context-dependent.
> >
> > My question is: Is the document in any place not factual? Or missing
> > facts? If so, please let us know - that should be fixed!
> >
> > Michael
> >
&g
r missing
> facts? If so, please let us know - that should be fixed!
>
> Michael
>
> > -Original Message-----
> > From: OPSEC [mailto:opsec-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ronald
> Bonica
> > Sent: 03 December 2013 19:55
> > To: opsec@ietf.org
> > Subje
Well put!
> On Dec 4, 2013, at 4:06 AM, Gert Doering wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 08:59:27AM +, Michael Behringer (mbehring) wrote:
>> So the agreement at the time was to list, factually, without any weighing of
>> judgement, the technical aspects, pros and cons. This is w
> -Original Message-
> From: OPSEC [mailto:opsec-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dobbins,
> Roland
> Sent: 04 December 2013 02:48
> To: opsec@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [OPSEC] Review of draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-05
>
>
> On Dec 4, 2013, at 1:54 AM, Ronald Bonic
Hi,
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 08:59:27AM +, Michael Behringer (mbehring) wrote:
> So the agreement at the time was to list, factually, without any weighing of
> judgement, the technical aspects, pros and cons. This is what we're trying to
> do.
... and this I support :-) - even if I'm in the
ssage-
> From: OPSEC [mailto:opsec-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ronald Bonica
> Sent: 03 December 2013 19:55
> To: opsec@ietf.org
> Subject: [OPSEC] Review of draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-05
>
> Folks,
>
> Reading through Sections 2.2 and 2.3 of this document, I question wh
On Dec 4, 2013, at 1:54 AM, Ronald Bonica wrote:
> I question whether the benefits of numbering router interfaces from
> link-local address space actually outweigh the cost.
I'd be very interested to hear the view of the authors on how this differs in
effect from numbering IPv4 router interfa
Folks,
Reading through Sections 2.2 and 2.3 of this document, I question whether the
benefits of numbering router interfaces from link-local address space actually
outweigh the cost. The document lists the following as benefits:
1) Smaller routing tables
2) Simpler address management
3) Lower c
18 matches
Mail list logo
