As I said at the mic, I believe this will be very useful to help mail
providers process IPv6 mail and is close to done.
Minor suggestions;
In section 3, for CGNAT rather than trying to squash the NAT size into the
prefix size field, it'd be clearer to use a third column to say how big
the pool is, so the example would be:
192.0.2.0/24,,65536
In the last paragraph of section 9, security considerations, I would note
that a malicious provider could publish fake small allocations so on
receipt of complaints, they could say they "fired the bad customer" and
move the traffic to different addresses. In practice I expect mail
providers to use the overall reputation of senders to decide whether to
believe the prefix lengths.
In the next to last para, I don't understand the DDoS issue. If one of
your sites is under attack, the way you protect a single address or
protect a /96 or /64 or whatever is basically the same.
R's,
John
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org
