IPv6 Deployment in Internet Exchange Points (IXPs)
draft-ietf-v6ops-v6inixp-09

[Ballot comment]
Do IXPs normally run SIP gateways (Section 7)? That would be news
to me...

Ari Keränen's review noted some editorial issues:

2. Switch Fabric Configuration

      2.  independent VLAN (Virtual Local Area Network): when an IXP
        logically separates IPv4 and IPv6 traffic in different VLANs.

Missing VLAN reference.


3. Addressing Plan

    o  IXP may decide that LANs should (attempt to be) be globally

The word "be" twice in a row.

    Additionally, possible IXP external services (such as dns, web pages,
    ftp servers)

DNS and FTP not capitalized.


4.1. Multicast Support and Monitoring for ND at an IXP

"ND" not expanded (mentioned first time). Probably would be better to do
it somewhere before the title.

[Ballot comment]
>  However, some management
  functions may require explicit IPv6 support (such as switch
  management, SNMP [RFC3411] support or flow analysis exportation) and
  this should be assessed by the IXP operator.

I do not understand what switch management means here, and support of SNMP and IPFIX (which I suspect is what is meant by flow analysis exportation) should be transparent to the network layer.

[Ballot comment]
Slightly pedantic comments:

In Section 3, last paragraph:

  Additionally, possible IXP external services (such as dns, web pages,
  ftp servers) need to be globally routed.

s/dns/DNS
s/ftp/FTP

Also add informative references for these.


More acronyms with no references in Section 7.

> (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
> Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
> document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
> version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

The Document Shepherd is Fred Baker. Yes, I have reviewed it, and yes I think it is ready for publication.

> (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
> and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
> any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
> have been performed?

It was discussed on the list and presented in working group meetings. The discussion was generally supportive and made few recommendations for changes.

> (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
> needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
> e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
> AAA, internationalization or XML?

Not really, as those are not at issue in this case. It concerns a set of IPv6 subnets configured, often manually, on a LAN Switch, implementing an Internet Exchange Point.

> (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
> issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
> and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he
> or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
> has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
> event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
> that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
> concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
> been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
> disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
> this issue.

I have no concerns. In part, this is true because the recommendations of the document have been tested in implementation.

> (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
> represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
> others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
> agree with it?

v6ops tends to be a quiet bunch unless they disagree with something. When we look at topics, it tends to be those closest to the topic that comment, with others watching. In this case, several operators got involved in the discussion. Hence, I would argue that it had an adequate level of review and that the reviewers supported it.

> (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
> discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
> separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It
> should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
> entered into the ID Tracker.)

No

> (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
> document satisfies all ID nits? (See the
> Internet-Drafts Checklist
> and
> http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
> ). Boilerplate checks are
> not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
> met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
> Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

It has met review criteria, and it passes the in-nits check cleanly.

> (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
> informative? Are there normative references to documents that
> are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
> state? If such normative references exist, what is the
> strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
> that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
> so, list these downward references to support the Area
> Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

The references are all "informative", and are all called out as such.

> (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
> consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
> of the document? If the document specifies protocol
> extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
> registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
> the document creates a new registry, does it define the
> proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
> procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
> reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the
> document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
> conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
> can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

The document places no request to IANA. The IANA considerations section is present and states that.

> (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
> document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
> code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
> an automated checker?

There is no formal code.

> (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
> Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
> Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the
> "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
> announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

This document provides guidance on IPv6 deployment in Internet Exchange Points (IXP). It includes information regarding the switch fabric configuration, the addressing plan and general organizational tasks that need to be performed. IXPs are mainly a layer 2 infrastructure and in many cases the best recommendations suggest that the IPv6 data, control and management plane should not be handled differently than in IPv4.

Working Group Summary

The working group is generally supportive of the recommendations of this document.

Document Quality

The document makes clear recommendations on how one would deploy IPv6 in an IXP. In general, this is done by reference to IPv4, which IXPs also support; it recommends that one follows the same procedures one does for IPv4. Where there are differences, notably in the format of the addresses used, it is clear and straightforward. For example, it recommends against the use of ULAs due to the need to perform reverse DNS verification, and prefers global addresses, and gives several examples of addressing conventions that have been found useful in IXP deployments.