Autonomic IPv6 Edge Prefix Management in Large-scale Networks
draft-ietf-anima-prefix-management-07

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.

Terry Manderson Yes

(Alia Atlas) No Objection

Deborah Brungard No Objection

Ben Campbell No Objection

Comment (2017-12-13 for -06)
- On my first reading, I wondered why this was informational. It seems to seek to standardize protocol elements. The explanation in the shepherd report clarifies that; it would be helpful to include (a perhaps shortened version of) that in the draft.

-2: RFC 8174 has boilerplate to address the "only in upper case" part. Please consider using it rather than modifying the 2119 boilerplate.

-4.4: "It is therefore important to record all the prefix assignment history."
Isn’t this a local policy choice? Perhaps some operator believes in extreme log minimization, does this mean to argue they are mistaken?

Alissa Cooper No Objection

Suresh Krishnan No Objection

Warren Kumari No Objection

Comment (2017-12-13 for -06)
Thank you.

I did have some comments / questions.
I'd also like to draw both the authors, and AD's attention to Fred Bakers excellent thoughts in his OpsDir review - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-anima-prefix-management-06-opsdir-lc-baker-2017-10-23/

Firstly, a global concern:
This technique (and I suspect many automated prefix allocations where a device uses space, and then requests more) is likely (I think) to result in fragmentation of the address space - this will lead to more routing entries in the IGP, which may be an issue for smaller routers or "L3 switches". I think that it would be useful to note this.

I also wanted to make sure that the author of this document were aware of the CASM BoF from IETF98 - I've just checked, and see that at least Qiong Sun was associated with the work (draft-xie-ps-centralized-address-management).

I had a question -- I don't really understand what: [Page 9] "A gateway router in a hierarchical network topology normally provides prefixes for routers within its subnet, ..." is trying to say. I've seen many "hierarchical network topologies" and don't believe this to be true, nor do I really understand what "its subnet" means. In some cases a router will announce an aggregate for customers behind it, but I don't really view that as a general case. I'm guessing I'm just not understanding - can you please educate me?

(Kathleen Moriarty) No Objection

Comment (2017-12-13 for -06)
Thanks for addressing the SecDir comments.

Alvaro Retana No Objection