Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6-06.txt

[Ian Farrer <[e-mail]>]

Hi Senthil,

Good point. So, that would give us:

> For TCP and UDP traffic the NAPT44 implemented in the lwB4 SHOULD conform with the behaviour and best current practices documented in
> [RFC4787], [RFC508], and [RFC5382]. If the lwB4 supports DCCP, then the requirements in [RFC5597] SHOULD be implemented.
> 
> The NAPT44 in the lwB4 MUST implement ICMP message handling behaviour conforming to the best current practice documented in [RFC5508]
> If the lwB4 receives an ICMP error (for errors detected inside the IPv6 tunnel), the node should relay
> the ICMP error message to the original source (the lwAFTR).
> 
> This behaviour SHOULD be implemented conforming to the section 8 of [RFC2473].


Works for me. OK with you Woj?

Cheers,
Ian


On 3 Mar 2014, at 19:16, Senthil Sivakumar (ssenthil) <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Ian,
> The NAPT44 in the lwB4 MUST implement ICMP message handling behaviour conforming to the best current practice documented in [RFC5508]
> If the lwB4 receives an ICMP message without the ICMP identifier field for errors detected inside the IPv6 tunnel, the node should relay
> the ICMP error message to the original source (the lwAFTR).
> 
> Does the highlighted part mean "If the lwB4 receives an ICMP error message", if so can you replace it as suggested?
> I am not really sure why icmp identifier field is mentioned in there. Other than that I am ok with the text.
> 
> Thanks
> Senthil
> 
> 
> From: Ian Farrer <[e-mail]>
> Date: Monday, March 3, 2014 1:54 PM
> To: Wojciech Dec <[e-mail]>, Senthil Sivakumar <[e-mail]>
> Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, Softwires-wg <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6-06.txt
> 
> Hi Woj / Senthil,
> 
> Putting the other discussions to the side for a moment, can we tackle the fragmentation text you proposed as this should be easily resolvable?
> 
>> 
>> 
>> Suggested text: 
>> The NAT44 in the lwB4 MUST implement the behavior for ICMP message conforming to the
>>    best current practice documented in [RFC5508]. 
>> If a LwB4 receives an ICMP error message without the ICMP
>>    identifier field for errors that is detected inside a IPv6 tunnel, the
>>    node should relay the ICMP error message to the original source.
>>    This behavior SHOULD be implemented conforming to the section 8 of
>>    [RFC2473].
>>  FOr TCP and UDP traffic the NAT44 implemented in the LwB4 SHOULD conform with the behavior
>>    and best current practice documented in [RFC4787], [RFC5508], and
>>    [RFC5382].  
>> 
> 
> What about the following wording, tweaked after reading RFC6888 (Common Reqs for CGNs), replacing Section 5.2:
> ---
> For TCP and UDP traffic the NAPT44 implemented in the lwB4 SHOULD conform with the behaviour and best current practices documented in
> [RFC4787], [RFC508], and [RFC5382]. If the lwB4 supports DCCP, then the requirements in [RFC5597] SHOULD be implemented.
> 
> The NAPT44 in the lwB4 MUST implement ICMP message handling behaviour conforming to the best current practice documented in [RFC5508]
> If the lwB4 receives an ICMP message without the ICMP identifier field for errors detected inside the IPv6 tunnel, the node should relay
> the ICMP error message to the original source (the lwAFTR).
> 
> This behaviour SHOULD be implemented conforming to the section 8 of [RFC2473].
> ----
> 
> @Senthil, as this is a change to the wording previously agreed, could you let me know if you’re OK with the proposed new text?
> 
> Cheers,
> Ian