Re: [Softwires] 4rd Address Mapping - version-01

[Washam Fan <[e-mail]>]

Hi Remi,

I found this version is more clearer and simpler thanks to those
examples and diagrams.

I have 3 comments here:
1. You mentioned port-less layer-4 protocol in section 6, were you
refering to ICMP? IIRC, the echo request sequence can be seen as a
port to some extend. But it was not mentioned in the new version,
Would you explain why?
2. It seems to me you assumed rule ipv6 prefix length is shorter or
equals to 64. was that your intention? (I assume yes, otherwise 4rd
IID makes no sense)
3. Personally, I think it might be better if you move security
relevant text to Security Consideration section. I recall there was a
draft/RFC regarding to tunnel security, but i can not tell now. Would
be better to reference such a doc if it existed.

Thanks,
washam

2011/9/22 Rémi Després <[e-mail]>:
> Alain, all,
>
> We have just posted a new version of our I-D on the proposed 4rd Address Mapping.
> It is available at
> www.ietf.org/id/draft-despres-softwire-4rd-addmapping-01.txt
>
> Our presentation will be based on THIS version, technically simpler than version -00.
> Major differences and their justifications will be briefly explained.
>
> Regards,
> RD
> _______________________________________________
> Softwires mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>