Hello again and thank you for the effort,

just a few more comments


Executive Summary, b2: The benefit is not clear. "Differentiate..., even if it increases complexity". I would expect something along the lines of: "Differentiate..., even if it increases complexity, because of this and that benefit"

Chapter 3, third paragraph: "This may be immediate in terms of other networks or content providers...". We might want to rewrite this as "This may have an immediate impact, like when other networks or content providers..."

Chapter 4, first paragraph: "At this point, the IPv4 scarcity needs to be reconsidered because the abundance of IPv6 addresses enables numbering decisions to be taken differently." . Its not the scarcity that needs to be reconsidered, its the numbering decisions due to that scarcity.

4.1.2: "Finally, certain hardware in the ISP infrastructure may consume resources when using numbered links. This is a very specific situation that you may need to consider." As a more general comment, I feel that this BCOP is lacking examples that make the points "relatable"

4.2.1: "This is probably the most practical and pragmatic way..." Desired it may be, pragmatic it certainly isn't


cheers,

Yannis


On 08/08/2017 12:01 PM, Jan Zorz - Go6 wrote:
Dear RIPE IPv6 WG,

We received offline some good and valuable comments from MarcoH,
addressed them and issued the version 6 of the document draft.

https://sinog.si/docs/draft-IPv6pd-BCOP-v6.pdf

Please, read and comment, if you think that we need to carry on with
editing this document. If not, I would like to see if we can reach a
consensus to move forward and ask RIPE staff to do the language check
and publish this document as RIPE BCP.

Any comments? Suggestions?

For v6_pd_BCOP co-authors team, Jan Žorž



Reply via email to