RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-scenarios-01.txt

["Bound, Jim" <jim.bound@hp.com>]

just a question?  these notes were in the previous draft I am confused.
just checking.
Questions still valid.  
/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ronald van der Pol [mailto:Ronald.vanderPol@rvdp.org] 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 10:36 AM
> To: Bound, Jim
> Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-scenarios-01.txt
> 
> 
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 16:06:11 -0500, 
> Internet-Drafts@ietf.org wrote:
> 
> > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: 
> > 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-scenarios-01.
> > txt
> 
> section 3.1:
> 
> **Note To V6ops WG: Would a network topology map be useful here?
> 
> I don't think this is necessary in either one of the three scenarios.
> 
> What would be useful is to better define "parallel" in 
> scenario 1. E.g., what is the difference with 
> "re-structuring" in scenario 3? Does "parallel" mean 
> different links and routers or does it mean dual-stack (or both)?
> 
> section 3.2:
> I think the term "address ownership" should be avoided.
> 
> section 3.3:
> Is "Network A" an example of scenario 1, "Network B" of 
> scenario 2 and "Network C" of scenario 3? If so, this could 
> be made more clearly.
> 
> section 4.3:
> **Note to V6ops WG: Should we discuss porting of applications 
> too in the legacy section?
> 
> I don't think so. Maybe just a reference to: 
> draft-shin-v6ops-application-transition-02.txt
> 
> section 5.1:
> **Note to V6ops WG: Should we get into other DNS issues?
> 
> The sentence is quite terse, but I think it includes all issues.
> 
> section 5.2:
> **Note to V6ops WG: Above is example of additional text we could add
>   to each component we list here.  Are there other Routing issues?
> 
> The ISP draft has some nice text about IS-IS and OSPF with 
> regard to one or two processes. But maybe that's something 
> for the analysis document.
> 
> section 5.3:
> **Note to V6ops WG: Should we get into other autoconfiguration
>   issues?
> 
> IPv6 statefull autoconfiguration does not give all 
> information (e.g. DNS, NTP, etc servers). Maybe add what 
> things should/could be autoconfigured. But maybe this is also 
> something for the analysis draft.
> 
> In v4 part of a /24 is sometimes used in ACLs. E.g., the 
> upper /28 of a /24 is used for BOFHs by giving that /28 
> access to services. With autoconf you cannot do that.
> 
> section 5.4:
> **Note to V6ops WG: Should we get into other security issues? 
> The document describes the main requirements. More details 
> could go in the analysis document.
> 
> section 5.5:
> **Note to V6ops WG: Should we get into other application 
> issues? Some applications cannot be ported (e.g., no source code).
> 
> section 5.6:
> **Note to V6ops WG: Should we get into other Management 
> issues? People need to be trained.
> 
> section 5.7
> **Note to V6ops WG: Should we get into other Address Planning issues?
> 
> Maybe add that IPv6 has /48 and /64 defaults. Especially the 
> /64 is quite different from v4, where one link can have a /24 
> and another a /28.
> 
> **Note to V6ops WG: What other components are we missing?
> I think you have quite some items already. I think the focus 
> should go now to the analysis draft.
> 
> 	rvdp
>