|
David, Thank you for your time in reviewing the document. I will incorporate your feedback in the next draft. I would appreciate any feedback from others on the process for taking a draft though the group to publication status... assuming people believe this is worth being published. Tony K On 1/08/11 12:29 PM, David Swafford wrote: Hi Anthony, Please disregard my question on the MPLS scope, I originally responded based on revision number 2 of your draft. I just glanced through the current rev and it looks like you've addressed most of my comments.David. On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 10:19 PM, David Swafford <[email protected]> wrote:Hi Anthony, I just took my first read through and it appears to be quite polished in the current state, but I do have a few comments to add: PMTUD -- It's good to see this specifically brought up. NAT -- I see you point for bringing this up and in my mind, I think the largest pain point will be with regard to training of our junior engineers when RFC1918 space is no longer "just the inside". It makes sense that one might run into operational issues given that device software was written within the context of RFC1918 being the internal side of a NAT setup, or firewall policies for that matter. DNS -- this section seems to be a little wordy in my opinion, here's a potential rewrite that comes to my mind: Many ISPs utilise their DNS to perform both forward and reverse resolution for infrastructure addresses. Within a privately numbered core, the ISP itself would still have the capability to perform name resolution of their own infrastructure, however, others beyond the ISP would not have this capability. MLPS VPN -- I'm curious to know your intended scope on this topic? Overall though, It looks to fill in a needed place of reference for future discussion on the topic. David. David Swafford, CCNP, CEH, CWSP Senior Network Engineer, CareSource On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 8:48 PM, Anthony Kirkham <[email protected]> wrote:All, I'd appreciate any advice on how I might progress this draft. I'm reasonably happy with it now, but unsure how to take it the next step. I'd greatly appreciate any guidance. Document draft-kirkham-private-ip-sp-cores Revision 04 WG Individual Submission Document date 2011-06-16 Submission date 2011-06-16 Title Issues with Private IP Addressing in the Internet People in the past have indicated the draft is useful. I hope this is still the case, despite it taking a long while to get to this stage. Regards and thanks Tony K -- Anthony Kirkham Solution Architect World Wide Security Service Practice [email protected] Phone: +61 (0)7 3238 8203 Mobile: +61 (0)401 890 494 CISSP, CCIE# - 1378 Level 12, 300 Adelaide Street Brisbane, Qld, 4000 Australia Cisco home page _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow --
| ||||||||
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
