On 3/26/14, 11:10 , Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
2.3 in the draft:
So I don't really understand what Randy has against this document and what
other warnings he wants to have in it. What is this "toxic" warning Randy
wants? Randy, please enlighten me?
Well, not attempting to speak for Randy, but I'd like to see a more
balanced introduction (it summarizes the benefits; it should not just defer
the caveats to the body), and maybe some discussion on where it might be
useful to deploy a network using lla-only (homenets or small meshy things?
I can't think of any enterprise or carrier scenario where I would want to
do this), and clearer statement that this may not be for everybody and is
not a general BCP.
And while the caveats hint at it, there's also an operational complexity
burden that isn't called out - the ping and NMS/discovery limitations also
apply to human operators troubleshooting faults and attempting to
understand a deployed topology. LLDP and NDP add a layer of indirection in
identifying what devices should be adjacent to a given interface, and only
work when there is operational state available and links are up (whereas
GUAs on interconnected devices can be compared by configuration alone,
telling you what's supposed to be there).
-e
_______________________________________________
OPSEC mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
