Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-routing-guidelines-00.txt

[Mark Smith <ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org>]

Hi,

On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 05:17:04 +0800
Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> wrote:

> So Marc posted the WG version of his document. Would folks please  
> read it and comment to the list?
> 

2.4.  Site-scoped Unicast
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"However, it may be advertised in an EGP between two
   networks sharing a private interconnect, but must not be advertised
   outside the scope of these networks.  When advertised in an EGP,
   these routes should be of length /48."

Worth adding a bit of text (maybe just one sentence) to include or
cover the SP, IGP for loopbacks, EGP for everything else internal
routing model as an acceptable case for ULA/EGP distribution ? I think
it is sort of covered, although I don't think people commonly would
consider an LB-IGP/EGP model to be internally multiple networks with
private interconnect.

2.5.  Global Unicast
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The global unicast routes (2000::/3)[RFC4291] may be advertised in an
   IGP or EGP.  A minimal EGP routing policy should filter out routes
   that exceed a maximum length.  Determining the maximum length of a .."

I'd suggest starting a new paragraph at the second sentence, as that
sentence is the beginning text covering specifics of the EGP case.

2.6.  Default Route
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The default unicast route (::) may be advertised in an IGP.  In an
   EGP, it may be only advertised to the downstream but must not be
   advertised in the core."

I think the SP LB-IGP/EGP model would be a possible to exeception to
this, in the sense that "core" would probably be considered by most
people to be the core of the local network, rather than the Internet
"core". Maybe that could be clarified.

General Comment
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There seem to be quite a number of uncapitalised "shoulds" and "musts"
in this document. I realise that this is probably appropriate for this
document, as it is not a specification document. However, where proper
"MUSTS" and "SHOULDS" do exist in the specification documents, I think
there could be some value in providing references to them, and maybe
quoting the specific text.

Regards,
Mark.