You are welcome.
Chris
On 07Nov2012, at 09.40, Victor Kuarsingh <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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
