On Dec 4, 2013, at 4:06 AM, Michael Behringer (mbehring) <[email protected]> wrote:
>> -----Original Message----- >> From: OPSEC [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dobbins, >> Roland >> Sent: 04 December 2013 02:48 >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [OPSEC] Review of draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-05 >> >> >> On Dec 4, 2013, at 1:54 AM, Ronald Bonica <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I question whether the benefits of numbering router interfaces from link- >> local address space actually outweigh the cost. >> >> I'd be very interested to hear the view of the authors on how this differs in >> effect from numbering IPv4 router interfaces from RFC1918 spaces, and the >> operational issues which arise from doing so. > > Roland, in short: We're not addressing RFC1918 in this doc. It's outside > scope. > >> While link-local addresses are generally unique, we should consider the >> experience to date in dealing with privately-addressed router interfaces on >> the public Internet, and determine whether the benefits of doing >> something similar with IPv6 outweigh the possible negatives. > > The 1918 method is different. It would be an interesting discussion to have, > in another document. > > For the LLA approach, we were told in no uncertain terms that we should NOT > make a judgement, but just list the facts to consider. That's what we tried > to do. Each operator should be able to take those and make his judgement. Yup, I think that this is one of the sticking points with this draft -- it seems fairly clear that you can do what the draft describes (we have an existence proof), much of the discussion has been on the "Are we advocating this as a solution?" topic. A number of folk have asked that we document be more of a "If you use LLA for links, this is what to keep in mind / this is what we have found" and not a value judgment on doing this. When commenting can folk please also include if they think the draft tone correctly captures this? <no hats> I have read all the versions of this document and think that the tone has greatly improved, but feel that section 2.5 (Summary) still has a bit too much of the "this is a good idea" feel. Personally I think that the Summary section doesn't really add anything to the document and should be dropped. </no hats> W > > Please let us know where we're not factual or misleading - that needs fixing. > > Michael > >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Roland Dobbins <[email protected]> // >> <http://www.arbornetworks.com> >> >> Luck is the residue of opportunity and design. >> >> -- John Milton >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OPSEC mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec > _______________________________________________ > OPSEC mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec > -- "When it comes to glittering objects, wizards have all the taste and self-control of a deranged magpie." -- Terry Pratchett _______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
