[bcop] IPv6 prefix delegation BCOP document available for comments and suggestions

Hi Jan,

Great doc, and very readable. Thanks to all the authors for their input. 
I went over the doc with the eyes of a newbie to this stuff and found some areas for clarification.

In section 3, we mention "end-user" for the first time, without explaining what an end-user is in this context.. In our courses we have to make that explanation sooner than later, because different audiences read different things in the word “end-user”.

The abbreviation of CPE is nowhere explained or fully written.

Can we provide a link to an explanation of the Neighbor Discovery exhaustion attack?

3.1.3
where we mention “This method may be seen as easier to implement, but it also brings some drawbacks such as difficulties with troubleshooting”, can we make it a bit more explicit by stating that link-local addresses don’t appear in a trace route, for example?

3.2.1
“It should be remembered that some mechanisms use a default /48 prefix size “ 
Do we have examples?

3.2.3.
I would make 

“There is a clear exception to this rule when assigning addresses in a cellular network. I n this case a /64 will need to be provided for each PDP context for cellular phones, whereas for LTE modems/routers it will still be necessary to choose a /48 or /56, in accordance with the aforementioned considerations.“
the paragraph after “assigning a /64 or smaller prefix is highly discouraged”

4.
“Static assignment means that a prefix is assigned to a customer (typically an AAA) “
What is an AAA? Try to explain abbreviations.

4.1
“The easiest way method” remove way or method.

4.2 
“If the CPE knows that the delegated prefix has changed it should send out RA packets”
Write Router Advertisements. 

Did the authors consider images to explain certain concepts? For example bit boundary? RIPE NCC can help with that, if you wish.

I hope this input is useful.

Thanks again!

Nathalie Künneke-Trenaman
IPv6 Program Manager
RIPE NCC 


> On 27 Mar 2017, at 15:30, Jan Zorz - Go6 <jan at go6.si> wrote:
> 
> Dear RIPE BCOP community,
> 
> As promised at last RIPE meeting in Madrid, we produced a first draft of
> "Best Current Operational Practice for operators: IPv6 prefix assignment
> for end-users - static (stable) or dynamic (non-stable) and what size to
> choose."
> 
> The aim of this document is to document the best current operational
> practice on what size of IPv6 prefix ISPs should assign/delegate to
> their customers and should they delegate it in a stable, static way or
> should it change over time.
> 
> Please find the PDF attached and also accessible at:
> 
> https://www.sinog.si/docs/draft-IPv6pd-BCOP-v1.pdf
> 
> We are submitting this document to RIPE BCOP TF (here) to check if this is a
> real best operational practice and get consensus on it. We are also
> submitting this document to RIPE IPv6 WG to check the technical validity
> of the document and also get consensus on it.
> 
> Please, read the document and send back comments to this mailing list.
> All feedback is more than welcome.
> 
> On behalf of co-authors, Jan Žorž
> 
> P.S: This document is not intended to document what practices may
> be in future and what they might look like, but to reflect the best
> methods of implementing IPv6 at the time of publication. Updates to this
> document will be published to reflect changes in best current practices
> where there are developments in standards and implementations.
> <draft-IPv6pd-BCOP-v1.pdf>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/bcop/attachments/20170403/3f12bc6a/attachment.html>