Re: [Int-dir] Int-Dir Review of draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-12

[Tim Chown <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I'm the other reviewer - I should have my review with you soon.

Best wishes,
Tim 

> On 12 Dec 2016, at 07:57, [e-mail] wrote:
> 
> Re-,
> 
> Ok, thank you. 
> 
> I will wait for the second IntDir review before submitting an updated version with the change we agreed. 
> 
> Cheers,
> Med
> 
>> -----Message d'origine-----
>> De : Zhen Cao [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Envoyé : lundi 12 décembre 2016 08:16
>> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN
>> Cc : [e-mail]; int-
>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>> Objet : Re: Int-Dir Review of draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-12
>> 
>> Hello Med,
>> 
>> Thanks for the quick response which sounds good to me.
>> 
>> BR,
>> Zhen
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 2:45 PM,  <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> Dear Zhen,
>>> 
>>> Thank you for the review.
>>> 
>>> Please see inline.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Med
>>> 
>>>> -----Message d'origine-----
>>>> De : Zhen Cao [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>> Envoyé : lundi 12 décembre 2016 07:01
>>>> À : [e-mail]
>>>> Cc : [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>>>> Objet : Int-Dir Review of draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-12
>>>> 
>>>> Hi, authors and editors,
>>>> 
>>>> I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for this draft. These
>>>> comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area
>>>> Directors. Document editors and shepherds should treat these comments
>>>> just like they would treat comments from any other IETF contributors
>>>> and resolve them along with any other Last Call comments that have
>>>> been received. For more details of the INT directorate, see
>>>> <http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate.html>.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I do not see any major reason to block the publication of this draft.
>>>> Below are two comments for discussion.
>>>> 
>>>> a) uPrefix64 and mPrefix64
>>>> 
>>>> I was a bit confused when I encounter the name suffix -64, because
>>>> they somehow imply only 64-bit long prefix could be used, while the
>>>> fact may be not true.
>>> 
>>> [Med] Actually, 64 is not used to denote the prefix length but this is a
>> practice widely used in transition mechanisms, you can see for instance:
>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6146
>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6147
>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7050
>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7225
>>> ...
>>> 
>>>  If '64' means an IPv6-IPv4 mapping, it may make
>>>> some sense.  So I highly encourage the editors to put some notes below
>>>> the items in the terminology section.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> [Med] Makes sense. I added a note similar note that we have in
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option-
>> 11:
>>> 
>>>         Note: "64" is used as an abbreviation for IPv6-IPv4
>>>         interconnection.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> b)
>>>> 6.2.  Multicast Data Forwarding
>>>> 
>>>>  When the mB4 receives an IPv6 multicast packet, it MUST check the
>>>>   group address and the source address.  If the IPv6 multicast group
>>>>   prefix is mPrefix64 and the IPv6 source prefix is uPrefix64, the mB4
>>>>   MUST decapsulate the IPv6 header and forward the IPv4 multicast
>>>>   packet through each relevant interface.  Otherwise, the mB4 MUST
>>>>   silently drop the packet.
>>>> 
>>>> comments: the mB4 not only needs to check the validity of mPrefix and
>>>> uPrefix, but also needs to check if there exists an associated
>>>> MLD/IGMP requests from that prefixes.  Only if there was an IGMP
>>>> report associted with this transaction, it will forward such multicast
>>>> packets.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> [Med] This is actually the intent of the last part of the text you
>> quoted:
>>> 
>>>   prefix is mPrefix64 and the IPv6 source prefix is uPrefix64, the mB4
>>>   MUST decapsulate the IPv6 header and forward the IPv4 multicast
>>>   packet through each relevant interface.
>>>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> 
>>> If no state is found, there won't be any "relevant interface". So the
>> traffic won't be forwarded.
>>> 
>>>> Thanks for draft the document.
>>>> 
>>>> -zhen
> _______________________________________________
> Int-dir mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-dir