Subject: Comments on prefix delegation requirements

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 02:46:24 +0100 (CET)

I think these are just editorial nits.

The draft talks about "commercial" but I think the same issues are present
if there is a non-commercial ISP that wants to offer non-commercial IPv6
service. So in terms of describing the need for the technology it is probably
best to drop the "commercial" designation.

Similarely, the statement about "boost IPv6 business quick as possible."
might also distract from the technical content of the document.

The document talks about "RA (Router Avertisement)". It would be good to
add a reference to the proxy RA document (as "work in progress")
to make the reference explicit.

I see some spelling errors like "signle.

  Erik

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Shin Miyakawa <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 10:54:01 +0900 (JST)

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Subject: Comments on prefix delegation requirements
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 02:46:24 +0100 (CET)

> I see some spelling errors like "signle.

thanks! I will take those comments to update.

Shin

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 04:07:52 +0200 (EET)

> best to drop the "commercial" designation.

Speaking of which, and the comment on security in the IETF meeting, I
believe it is a perfectly fine usage scenario to run prefix delegation
over shared ethernet (think of e.g. student dorm networks, usually based
on switched, shared ethernet).

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords

---

From: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 05:18:14 +0100

Hi Shin,

As we just discussed, I believe that this work will be very useful for the deployment of IPv6 on power line technology (see
www.6power.org).

But I feel that your document should be more clear regarding these requirements are not just for ADSL (Motivation section). I know
you say "examples", but, for instance, we know that it work already with Ethernet links instead of  point-to-point, as in fact is
indicated in "layer 2 consideration".

Hope it helps ;-)

Regards,
Jordi

----- Original Message -----
From: "Shin Miyakawa" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 2:54 AM
Subject: Re: Comments on prefix delegation requirements

> thanks! I will take those comments to update.

***********************************
Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit
12-14 May 2003 - Soon on line at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com
Interested in participating or sponsoring ?
Contact us at [email-masked]