Dear GROW,
During the last meeting, we presented the last version of
draft-ietf-grow-bmp-loc-peer, with a discussion around the questions raised by
MED.
We would like to receive your comments on the latter questions which are:
1. IPv4
Should we use IPv6-mapped IPv4 addresses [rfc4921] for the RX Peer Address TLV?
We'd rather not use them, but we're open to diverging opinions.
2. IPV6
1. Can the Zone ID be used as easily as interface ID and interface name to
correlate with IP traffic reports from IPFIX?
2. If so, should we have "IPv6 with Zone ID" [rfc4007] replace the "IPv6
with Interface Name" and "IPv6 with Interface Id" peer address types?
3. Which encoding should be preferred:
- IPv6 (16 bytes) + Zone_ID (String)
- Full string "IPv6 % Zone_ID" [rfc6874]
3. Should we remove the Peer Address Type code and base this "IPv4/IPv6"
distinction on the length of the TLV?
Thank you for your feedback
Best,
draft-ietf-grow-bmp-loc-peer authors
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
