Chris, Thanks for review. I will collect comments from the other two reviews and then make updates accordingly.
If discussions are required for particular points, I will pose those to the list. Regards, Victor K On 2012-11-07 11:37 AM, "Christopher LILJENSTOLPE" <[email protected]> wrote: >Greetings all, > ></chair hat> > >I've re-reviewed this version of the draft, and think that, on balance, >it is a useful draft explaining how an operator may utilize IP VRF based >VPN's to ease the deployment o NAT44 based CGN's. There are a few >suggestions for the authors, outlined below. > >1) I would indicate that the use of a services VRF is a MAY (in IETF >parlance). I could have the services address space either in a services >VRF, or I could actually have it in my non VRF tables (reducing the >number of VRFs that I have to maintain in the network). > >2) There is an assumption that appears in the document that the use of >CGN's will increase over-time, leading to a decentralized model. I would >instead phrase it that the model could be centralized or decentralized >based on architectural, operational, or engineering requirements. As far >as CGN use growth, I would phrase it that CGN deployment will probably >follow a bell-like curve. It grows as I am adding more IPv4 customers >when I have exhausted my IPv4 public block, and then will shrink as >IPv6-only or the other transition mechanisms take hold. Forecasting a >continual growth of CGN is probably (hopefully) incorrect. > > Christopher >_______________________________________________ >OPSAWG mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
