Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-19.txt

Thanks
Cheers.

On Tue, 12 Feb 2019, 14:07 <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com wrote:

> Hi Yu,
>
>
>
> The answer to your question is: Yes.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Med
>
>
>
> *De :* Yu Tianpeng [mailto:yutianpeng.ietf@gmail.com]
> *Envoyé :* mardi 12 février 2019 14:52
> *À :* BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN
> *Cc :* softwires@ietf.org
> *Objet :* Re: [Softwires] I-D Action:
> draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-19.txt
>
>
>
> Thanks a lot Mohamed.
>
> It answers my questions.
>
> Inline below.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tim
>
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2019, 12:42 <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com wrote:
>
> Hi Yu,
>
>
>
> Please see inline.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Med
>
>
>
> *De :* Softwires [mailto:softwires-bounces@ietf.org] *De la part de* Yu
> Tianpeng
> *Envoyé :* lundi 11 février 2019 12:27
> *À :* softwires@ietf.org
> *Objet :* Re: [Softwires] I-D Action:
> draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-19.txt
>
>
>
> Dear authors,
>
> Thanks for the new version.
>
> I had a quick read on latest version. I find some nits and also some
> questions along the way as we meet a scenario when deploying MAP that need
> s46 radius attributes.
>
>
>
> Nits:
>
> Section 7.1 should be referring section 3.x not 4.x
>
> [Med] Thank you for catching the bug in Section 7.1.
>
>
>
> Question:
>
> 1. How is the status of this document? This draft has last called long
> time ago, but still not standard yet. What is the reason? Any plans to move
> further? As I mentioned we meet requirement when deploying map, we may need
> to make a decision if we follow this draft or define a vendor specific one.
>
>
>
> [Med] The document passed the WGLC + addressed the reviews from radext wg.
> We do think that the document is ready to be sent to the IESG.
>
>  [Tim] glad to know. Thanks
>
> 2. This draft seems haven't consider conflicts between subscribers. E.g.
> EA length conflict between subscribers with in one MAP domain? And EA
> length from radius conflict with BNG within same MAP domain?
>
> As this draft enables the capability to maintain MAP rule logic in radius,
> conflict mechanisn should be investigated in my POV.
>
>
>
> [Med] Which conflict mechanism do you have in mind?
>
>
>
> I’m afraid this is deployment and implementation-specific. FWIW, the draft
> includes the following to warrant that some consistency checks is needed:
>
>
>
>    In some deployments, the DHCP server may use the Accounting-Request
>
>    to report to a AAA server the softwire configuration returned to a
>
>    requesting host.  It is the responsibility of the DHCP server to
>
>    ensure the consistency of the configuration provided to requesting
>
>    hosts.
>
>  [Tim] yes, it solves one of the scenario I mentioned.
>
> I believe if dhcp server use access request to get s46 info from AAA, then
> AAA server is response to enrue the consistency I suppose. Am I right?
>
>
>
> Appreciate your feedback.
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Tim
>
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2019, 08:26 <internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote:
>
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Softwires WG of the IETF.
>
>         Title           : RADIUS Attributes for Address plus Port (A+P)
> based Softwire Mechanisms
>         Authors         : Sheng Jiang
>                           Yu Fu
>                           Bing Liu
>                           Peter Deacon
>                           Chongfeng Xie
>                           Tianxiang Li
>                           Mohamed Boucadair
>         Filename        : draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-19.txt
>         Pages           : 39
>         Date            : 2019-02-11
>
> Abstract:
>    IPv4-over-IPv6 transition mechanisms provide IPv4 connectivity
>    services over IPv6 native networks during the IPv4/IPv6 co-existence
>    period.  DHCPv6 options have been defined for configuring clients for
>    Lightweight 4over6, Mapping of Address and Port with Encapsulation,
>    and Mapping of Address and Port using Translation unicast softwire
>    mechanisms, and also multicast softwires.  However, in many networks,
>    configuration information is stored in an Authentication,
>    Authorization, and Accounting server which utilizes the RADIUS
>    protocol to provide centralized management for users.  When a new
>    transition mechanism is developed, new RADIUS attributes need to be
>    defined correspondingly.
>
>    This document defines new RADIUS attributes to carry Address plus
>    Port based softwire configuration parameters from an Authentication,
>    Authorization, and Accounting server to a Broadband Network Gateway.
>    Both unicast and multicast attributes are covered.
>
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius/
>
> There are also htmlized versions available at:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-19
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-19
>
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-19
>
>
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Softwires mailing list
> Softwires@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>
>