[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Some comments on draft-ietf-v6ops-v6inixp-03.txt
- To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
- Subject: Some comments on draft-ietf-v6ops-v6inixp-03.txt
- From: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
- Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 15:11:10 -0300
- Cc: Roque Gagliano <roque@lacnic.net>
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :x-enigmail-version:openpgp:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=r7/ZaZVCZIzyud1aTMe5U0TAV+mtmDYOt3vqtaCSnavaS2NRAUI0HGa20PrTMxJKZk UunOW+9AUatPd7uv+Gzl31Ne7qzIzz2gSvfRJyK5zNsPIb1nBVxa3Vr0FpCyw3q7LUN7 yIdY0u4RHAFQaty/aMcFiHZyzz3xYyK25CTD0=
- Openpgp: id=D076FFF1
- User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
Hello, Roque,
Here's some feedback on the aforementioned I-D.
* Editorial *
Abstract:
> This document provides a guide for IPv6 deployment in Internet
s/a guide for/guidance on/
> Exchange Points (IXP). It includes information regarding the switch
s/information/advice/
> fabric configuration, the addressing plan and general organizational
> tasks to be performed. IXPs are mainly a layer 2 infrastructure and
s/to be/that need to be/
> in many case the best recommendations state that the IPv6 data,
s/case/cases/
s/state/suggest/
Introduction:
> Most Internet Exchange Points (IXP) work on the Layer 2 level, making
> the adoption of IPv6 an easy task.
s/work on/work at/
I found it hard to parse this sentence:
> This document clarifies the impact of IPv6
> on a new or an existing IXP that may or may not fit any particular
> deployment.
Section 2:
> However, some management
> functions require explicit IPv6 support (such as switch management,
> SNMP support and flow analysis exportation) and this should be
> assessed by the IXP operator.
Include a (Informative) reference to the SNMP spec.
> scenario, participants will typically configure dual stack
s/dual stack/dual-stack/
BTW, in this text:
> scenario, participants will typically configure dual stack
> interfaces, although independent port can be an option.
You meant something like "...will typically configure interfaces as
dual-stack, although independent interfaces could be possibly used for
each version of IP"?
> traffic. If IXP participants are already using Virtual LAN
> (VLAN) tagging on their routers interfaces that are facing the
> IXP switch,
Rephrase as "If IXP participants are already using Virtual LAN (VLAN)
tagging on those interfaces of their routers that are facing the IXP
switch...."
> Conversely, the dual stack implementation allows a quick and capital
> cost-free start-up for IPv6 support in the IXP, allowing the IXP to
s/dual stack/dual-stack/
Maybe s/capital cost-free/inexpensive/ ?
P.S.: More in the pipeline!
Thanks,
--
Fernando Gont
e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@acm.org
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1