IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-behave-64-analysis-05

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Fri, 17 February 2012 08:04 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14E4921E801C; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 00:04:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.596
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.596 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.003, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rdg3SrgRG1ev; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 00:04:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B502E21E8015; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 00:04:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.236.65]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q1H83gfI011336 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 17 Feb 2012 00:04:02 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1329465845; i=@elandsys.com; bh=9VAzFC1ICPygHuldwNx5RW2Tp2PiH+H1Y1N2prDWRtI=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=mlGChsB0wbWqWGItkR7rmUntXUrsEA2YBINQi54jCtGhX2JnypLdspqbDIytvJQFh Dzc5i0h3hYe4Ur6QD3PEFkBKB7zsRMoq3hXXMKyPDJMm55nztpEmR+XvqnK26Eqt1m zCt51XzrXchPDrkPS/leNQE7KHX00pd6fihler94=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1329465845; i=@elandsys.com; bh=9VAzFC1ICPygHuldwNx5RW2Tp2PiH+H1Y1N2prDWRtI=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=ZoEuGjgxtsLLkokg/Fn/R8nLvdfxAnsUoswSm2q/SyQfN7+yrTzyaEyt0YHRtgoqL F+dem0ET6BMeqJ8kMjNfUvcZc2gtDB0bK1gje2JnteR5u008iqf/2bO1cxX5W4dtgj 6PJj03W8jzD/RtG+7cTlDtd+HifSeYrfKnMUdN6k=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120216232557.0915c0a0@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 23:57:04 -0800
To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com, apps-discuss@ietf.org, draft-ietf-behave-64-analysis.all@tools.ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F35D8868D387@PUEXCB1B.nanter re.francetelecom.fr>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120216094738.08f96280@elandnews.com> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F35D8868D387@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: behave@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-behave-64-analysis-05
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 08:04:15 -0000

Hi Med,
At 22:51 16-02-2012, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com wrote:
>In some deployment it can be SPOF but in others no. This depends if 
>the a distributed NAT model is adopted, if NAT state synchronization 
>mechanisms are enabled, etc. Do we need to clarify this in the document?

It would help the reader if that could be clarified.

>The IPv4 address pool used by the NAT64 to service IPv6 hosts. 
>Several IPv6 hosts may share the same IPv4 address. Do you think 
>this need a clarification in the document?

I recommend a clarification as there is a proposal about shared address space.

>Sorry, but I don't understand this comment. Can you please clarify? Thanks.

If we are talking about the BEHAVE WG, IETF participants either know 
about it or can look it up.  If you say "which complies with BEHAVE 
NAT", a wider audience would not know what BEHAVE is.  It's easier to 
say "complies with NAT recommendations in [RFC4787][RFC5382]".

>I can do but IMHO the document does not introduce new security concerns, no?

I don't think so but I'll defer to the Security Directorate on this.

Thanks for the feedback.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email