Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-02

Request Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-02
Requested revision 02 (document currently at 13)
Type Last Call Review
Team Internet Area Directorate (intdir)
Deadline 2017-04-28
Requested 2017-04-12
Requested by Ron Bonica
Authors John Jason Brzozowski , Gunter Van de Velde
Draft last updated 2017-04-23
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -02 by Joel M. Halpern (diff)
Intdir Last Call review of -02 by Jouni Korhonen (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -03 by Tim Chown (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -03 by Joel M. Halpern (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -03 by Watson Ladd (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -02 by Sarah Banks (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -07 by Joel M. Halpern (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Jouni Korhonen
State Completed
Review review-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-02-intdir-lc-korhonen-2017-04-23
Reviewed revision 02 (document currently at 13)
Result Ready with Nits
Completed 2017-04-23
I think the document is close to ready but some more meat in still needed.
Similar type of configurations have been used in other types of link with
success. A couple of nits and questions.

Line 157: "hosts/subscribers devices connected to the provider managed shared"
is somewhat hard to parse. Does it mean to say "hosts'/subscribers' devices.."?

RFC6106 reference need to be replaced with 8106.

Line 259: Retransmit timer is the "AdvRetransTimer" or "restrans timer"? Be
more specific here.

Section 4 talks about unicast RAs. I think it would be good to mention also
RFC6085, which allows unicasting an RA to a host on an Ethernet link, while RAs
still use layer-3 multicast addressing. Similar goal, different approach. At
least I would welcome text why RFC6085 is not endorsed or applicable?

Section 5 gives some guidance regarding unsolicited RAs. However, it does not
say anything about PIOs, although the context of the text seems to assume the
presence of PIOs. I would mention those explicitly.  I would also be more clear
and state the unsolicited RAs are again unicasted. At least the current text
seems to assume so.

What happens when RSes get lost (all MAX_RTR_SOLICITATIONS)?

How shared links with multiple first hop routers are supposed to work with the
recommendations of this BCP. Current text seems to be only considering a single
first hop router deployments.