Subject: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-design-choices-09 quick review :)

From: Jan Zorz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 09:32:02 +0900

Dear WG, authors...

As promised I did a quick review of draft-ietf-v6ops-design-choices-09. 
I apologize for late review submission, but the -09 version came out 
just days ago ;)

I'm not entirely happy with the ULA discussion on pages 5 and 6, but at 
the end you (let's say so) adequately underline the fact that folx need 
to strongly reconsider using ULAs in their networks. Not strong language 
and message enough for my personal taste, but let it be.

Section 2.2.1:

Option b) is feasible choice for servers in data centers because of 
numerous reasons - security (each server on separate /64), measurements 
and others. Maybe you should mention this in the text. Endpoint host has 
no need for that.

Section 2.2.2:

Hopefully you are talking just about L3 interfaces on routers. There is 
no clear and visible clarification of that as just "Interface" notion is 
used ;)

End hosts also have interface and should not even think about that ;)

Page 11:

You can carry IPv4 also in OSPFv3 this days, so additional option would 
be OSPFv3/OSPFv3

See you all at v6ops WG meeting in few days ;)

Cheers, Jan