[Softwires] Dual-stack-lite-01

"Mikael Lind" <mikael.lind@hexago.com> Fri, 07 November 2008 17:20 UTC

Return-Path: <softwires-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: softwires-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-softwires-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E43A3A6A3B; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 09:20:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: softwires@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: softwires@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0CD63A6A3B for <softwires@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 09:20:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.15
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.15 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT=1.449]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kH4muzdUX+9i for <softwires@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 09:20:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ex.hexago.com (ex.hexago.com [IPv6:2001:5c0:0:1::4]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D875B3A67FD for <softwires@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 09:20:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost.hexago.com [127.0.0.1]) by ex.hexago.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11C566C8903; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 12:19:27 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at hexago.com
Received: from ex.hexago.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ex.hexago.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s4e6gwZTz8WZ; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 12:19:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: from MLX60 (unknown [IPv6:2001:5c0::5e1:d8db:c4e9:8545]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mikael@ex.hexago.com) by ex.hexago.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EA9F6C88F6; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 12:19:25 -0500 (EST)
From: Mikael Lind <mikael.lind@hexago.com>
To: softwires@ietf.org, 'Alain Durand' <alain_durand@cable.comcast.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2008 12:20:37 -0500
Message-ID: <05af01c940fd$268c4400$73a4cc00$@lind>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AclA/SZxoHtVeVj1TzaZnYtbbAcItA==
Content-Language: en-ca
Subject: [Softwires] Dual-stack-lite-01
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: softwires wg discussion list <softwires.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/softwires>
List-Post: <mailto:softwires@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: softwires-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: softwires-bounces@ietf.org

I have finally gone through the latest revision of the ds-lite draft and
overall I think it looks good. I only have two small comments/questions:

Section 4.2 and 4.4 defines an addressing scheme for the ds-lite tunnel and
also talks about the addressing of the home network but I have a problem
understanding the reasoning behind it and the conclusion. Why does the
tunnel addresses have to be well defined while the home network doesn't have
to, or does it? Since the NAT state always will be based on the IPv6 source
address the IPv4 addresses shouldn't really matter as long as it is a 1918
address. 

Section 6 seems very ambiguous and more about saying that in more complex
cases you might want to consider a different solution rather than defining
encapsulation methods. It needs more explanation and has to be a bit clearer
on what actually is expected when supporting other types encapsulation.
Right now I don't see what the benefit there would be in having multiple
encapsulation methods. 

A small nit is that the terminology changes throughout the document, which I
guess is due to the merger with the snat draft. This makes it look somewhat
like two different solutions. It is mainly chapter 5 that need to be changed
to be more in line with the rest of the document. 

-Mikael

_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
Softwires@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires