[ipv6-wg] IPv6 Prefix delegation BCOP version 3 is out...

Hi,

thanks for the effort put into this document. I have two bugreports:

In section 4.1.1:
> If we decide to use /127 for each point to point link, then it is also advisable to
> allocate a /64 for each link and use just one /127 out of it to prevent the Neighbor Discovery
> exhaustion attack (RFC6583).

My understanding of this sentence is that allocating /64 somehow
prevents Neighbor Discovery exhaustion attack.

It could be solved by splitting those two pieces of information into two
separate sentences:

> Using /127 for each point to point link can, on the other hand, prevent the Neighbor Discovery exhaustion attack (RFC6583).
> To avoid possible renumbering in the future, it is always advisable to allocate a /64 for each link and use just one /127 out of it.

In section 5.1:
> Bear in mind that end customers with an IPv4 subnet behind their CPE never got
> “non-persistent” assigned IPv4 prefixes as this would require reconfiguration of all hosts on
> their network every few hours or days. By contrast, every IPv6 customer gets an IPv6 subnet
> so it is unnecessary to apply this “IPv4 model” to IPv6.

I don't really understand the last sentence.  Which "IPv4 model" is
unnecessary to apply to IPv6? The model of static leases?

I would propose something like:
> 
> By contrast, every IPv6 customer gets an IPv6 subnet, so keeping customer's IPv6 subnet persistent follows perfectly the "IPv4 model".


Cheers,

--
Ondřej Caletka
CESNET


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3718 bytes
Desc: Elektronicky podpis S/MIME
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/ipv6-wg/attachments/20170628/3ef82bfe/attachment.p7s>