fixup! fixup! fixup! enhancement proposal for Packet IPI

enhancements/installer/packet-ipi.md

@@ -198,17 +198,25 @@ is used for testing the IPI, it may need account quota increases.
 ### Open Questions
 
 - Is the Packet CCM necessary?
+  - If so, who is responsible for supporting the MetalLB installation the Packet
+    CCM provides and requires for LoadBalancer definitions?
+  - Can [https://github.com/plunder-app/kube-vip#56](plunder-app/kube-vip)
+    stand-in for LoadBalancer service on Packet while disabling the packet-ccm's
+    MetalLB approach to LoadBalancing?
 - Is the Packet CSI necessary? If not, how will the Openshift image registry be
   created.
 - Can the sig-cluster-lifecycle ClusterAPI and OpenShift MachineAPI converge to
   prevent maintaining two similar but different ClusterAPI implementations?
 - How will the RHCOS image be served?
-- How will Ignition be started and configure nodes appropriately? (restating -
-  DHCP is not available but a metadata service is)
+- How will Ignition be started and configure nodes appropriately? After
+  pre-boot, Packet's DHCP offers only the primary IPv4 address. The metadata
+  service (offered on a public in-facility address) should be used. Afterburn
+  has [support for the Packet metadata
+  service](https://github.com/coreos/afterburn/blob/master/src/providers/packet/mod.rs).
 - Should VLANs (other than the Project-based private network) be used? Should
   these be opinionated or configurable? Are they needed in the first release
   with Packet IPI support?
-- What if any additional responsibilities can the bootstrap node adopt?
+- What (if any) additional responsibilities can the bootstrap node adopt?
 
 ### Test Plan