Subject: [v6ops] comments on draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-bearer-network-trials

From: "George, Wesley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 17:09:27 -0400

To echo my comments at the mic -

I'd recommend the MTU consideration be phrased in terms of the fact that the transport network should be designed to handle standard MTU (1500byte payload) plus any encaps overhead, rather than the end-user payload being reduced to meet a low MTU in the core.
A review of 4459 may provide some text of use.

Regarding the testing results - it would be helpful to classify which items failed testing because of a known lack of vendor support vs items which failed due to bugs or claimed vendor support that was incomplete or missing. Naming and shaming is sometimes a good way to ensure that vendors pay closer attention before claiming support for something, or warning others to be aware of the problem.

Also, this is interesting as a snapshot of your network, but the draft would be more useful (and therefore more likely to be adopted as a WG draft) if it identifies problems that the IETF (this WG or others) can help to solve, gaps, broken things, BCP recommendations, etc.

Thanks,

Wes George

________________________________
This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.