I should have said that this is a private response to > > From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <[email protected]> > Subject: [v6ops] Review requested, especially from operators > Date: September 29, 2012 9:25:47 AM GMT+02:00 > To: IPv6 Ops WG <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > The authors of > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-opsec-v6 > "Operational Security Considerations for IPv6 Networks", KK > Chittimaneni, Merike Kaeo, Eric Vyncke, 21-Sep-12 > > are requesting operational review of the document and specific comments. > Please post to opsec. > _______________________________________________ > v6ops mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> From: Tarko Tikan <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [v6ops] Review requested, especially from operators > Date: September 29, 2012 12:31:33 PM GMT+02:00 > To: "Fred Baker (fred)" <[email protected]> > > hey, > > 2.3.2 mentions IPfix as management protocol but IPfix is push only and is not > affected by ingress management ACL. > > 2.5 IPfix is incorrectly linked to RFC2740 (OSPFv6) > > Coming from someone who is working with IP/MPLS on daily basis, I'd add a > little warning to 2.6.1. Dual-stack is indeed easy to turn on but if you run > MPLS and expect your IPv6 traffic to be labelled same way your IPv4 is > (BGP-free core, MPLS EXP based QOS, etc.), this is not going to happen and > one should look into 6PE instead. > > Other than that, nice summary. > > -- > tarko > > _______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec _______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
