Subject: [OPSAWG] Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-lsn-deployment-01

From: Christopher LILJENSTOLPE <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 08:37:44 -0800

Greetings all,

</chair hat>

I've re-reviewed this version of the draft, and think that, on balance, it is a useful draft explaining how an operator may utilize IP VRF based VPN's to ease the deployment o NAT44 based CGN's.  There are a few suggestions for the authors, outlined below.

1) I would indicate that the use of a services VRF is a MAY (in IETF parlance).  I could have the services address space either in a services VRF, or I could actually have it in my non VRF tables (reducing the number of VRFs that I have to maintain in the network).  

2) There is an assumption that appears in the document that the use of CGN's will increase over-time, leading to a decentralized model.  I would instead phrase it that the model could be centralized or decentralized based on architectural, operational, or engineering requirements.  As far as CGN use growth, I would phrase it that CGN deployment will probably follow a bell-like curve.  It grows as I am adding more IPv4 customers when I have exhausted my IPv4 public block, and then will shrink as IPv6-only or the other transition mechanisms take hold.  Forecasting a continual growth of CGN is probably (hopefully) incorrect.

	Christopher

---

From: Victor Kuarsingh <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 12:40:27 -0500

Chris,

Thanks for review.  I will collect comments from the other two reviews and
then make updates accordingly.

If discussions are required for particular points, I will pose those to
the list.

Regards,

Victor K

On 2012-11-07 11:37 AM, "Christopher LILJENSTOLPE"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>Greetings all,
>
></chair hat>
>
>I've re-reviewed this version of the draft, and think that, on balance,
>it is a useful draft explaining how an operator may utilize IP VRF based
>VPN's to ease the deployment o NAT44 based CGN's.  There are a few
>suggestions for the authors, outlined below.
>
>1) I would indicate that the use of a services VRF is a MAY (in IETF
>parlance).  I could have the services address space either in a services
>VRF, or I could actually have it in my non VRF tables (reducing the
>number of VRFs that I have to maintain in the network).
>
>2) There is an assumption that appears in the document that the use of
>CGN's will increase over-time, leading to a decentralized model.  I would
>instead phrase it that the model could be centralized or decentralized
>based on architectural, operational, or engineering requirements.  As far
>as CGN use growth, I would phrase it that CGN deployment will probably
>follow a bell-like curve.  It grows as I am adding more IPv4 customers
>when I have exhausted my IPv4 public block, and then will shrink as
>IPv6-only or the other transition mechanisms take hold.  Forecasting a
>continual growth of CGN is probably (hopefully) incorrect.
>
>	Christopher
>_______________________________________________
>OPSAWG mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

---

From: Christopher LILJENSTOLPE <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 10:17:40 -0800

You are welcome.

	Chris