Subject: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-icp-guidance-05.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 02:32:13 -0800

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Operations Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : IPv6 Guidance for Internet Content and Application Service Providers
	Author(s)       : Brian Carpenter
                          Sheng Jiang
	Filename        : draft-ietf-v6ops-icp-guidance-05.txt
	Pages           : 25
	Date            : 2013-01-11

Abstract:
   This document provides guidance and suggestions for Internet Content
   Providers and Application Service Providers who wish to offer their
   service to both IPv6 and IPv4 customers.  Many of the points will
   also apply to hosting providers, or to any enterprise network
   preparing for IPv6 users.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-icp-guidance

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-icp-guidance-05

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-v6ops-icp-guidance-05

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 10:36:52 +0000

This version has minor updates following IESG review.

Regards
   Brian

On 11/01/2013 10:32, [email-masked] wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> I-D-Announce mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
>

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 07:27:51 -0800

No major complaints...

I would note that the section:

    Is
    extra memory or ternary content-addressable memory (TCAM) space
    needed to accommodate both IPv4 and IPv6 tables?  To answer these
    questions, the ICP will need a projected model for the amount of IPv6
    traffic expected initially, and its likely rate of increase.

Appears If I'm reading it correctly to conflate fib memory with traffic 
volume, when in fact it's prefix count  that's the issue for fib sizing.

On 1/11/13 2:36 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> v6ops mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 16:46:20 +0000

> volume, when in fact it's prefix count  that's the issue for fib sizing.

Hmm. The diffs don't necessarily make this very clear to read. "These
questions" is supposed to refer back to the two previous questions
about performance. I'll make a note to fix this by re-ordering the
sentences at AUTH48.

Thanks

    Brian