Review of draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option-11

Sheng Jiang <> Tue, 10 January 2017 03:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE716129A59; Mon, 9 Jan 2017 19:55:01 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Sheng Jiang <>
Subject: Review of draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option-11
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.40.3
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2017 19:55:01 -0800
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 03:55:02 -0000

Reviewer: Sheng Jiang
Review result: Has Nits

Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a standard
track RFC.

Major issues:

Minor issues:

“the specification of a DHCPv6 option that could be used to discover
   unicast PREFIX64s in environments where multicast is not enabled.
   Such side effect conflicts with the recommendation documented in
   Section 6 of [RFC7051].”

It is unclear how the Section 6 of RFC7051 relevant with the content
above. It would be necessary to quote particular content of RFC7051
and give necessary analysis.


“the Pv4 multicast address is inserted in the last 32 bits of the
IPv4-embedded IPv6
   multicast address.”