Last Call Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-02
review-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-02-intdir-lc-korhonen-2017-04-23-00
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 | |
I-D 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 | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host by Internet Area Directorate Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 02 (document currently at 13) | |
Result | Ready w/nits | |
Completed | 2017-04-23 |
review-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-02-intdir-lc-korhonen-2017-04-23-00
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.