Subject: comments on draft-ietf-multi6-v4-multihoming-01

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2004 18:02:18 +0300 (EEST)

Hi,

FWIW, I think section 3 on multihoming motivations is useful.  If we
skip that, I think a relevant part of the v4 background motivations
may get forgotten.  And if we can't formulate well enough our past
mistakes, .....

(Yes, I think it would take some amount of work to boost the section a 
bit, but it'd probably still be very useful.  On the other hand, some 
of those clarifications should already be added to section 5 if not in 
section 3.)

semi-editorial
--------------

5.  Features of IPv4 Multihoming

==> actually, don't these depend quite a bit on the v4 multihoming mechanism
used.  Especially it would be worth pointing out that RFC2260/NAT -based
mechanisms have a significantly smaller subset of these features.

editorial
---------

==> throughout the document, s/enterprise/site/ ?

   again, and as a result some providers decided to start filtering
   prefixes it accepted from peers based on prefix length.  This broke

==> s/it/they/

4.  Current methods used for IPv4 multihoming

==> lots and lots of typos etc. in this section; I spotted over 5 in 4.2,
4.3 and 4.4.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings