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

[Wojciech Dec <[e-mail]>]

Yes, for the ICMP handling part, this works for me.

Cheers



On 3 March 2014 20:40, Ian Farrer <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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 fieldfor 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 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/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] <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2473#section-8>.
>  FOr TCP and UDP traffic the NAT44 implemented in the LwB4 SHOULD conform with the behavior
>    and best current practice documented in [RFC4787 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4787>], [RFC5508 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5508>], and
>    [RFC5382 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/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
>
>
>