Re: [v6ops] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-v6ops-v4v6-xlat-prefix-01: (with DISCUSS)

Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> Tue, 20 June 2017 19:01 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CA+MHpBrx=yDaecnrfE9xp49WjH_rdV3DhO3hSV9w8z0Nr6s6Ow@mail.gmail.com>
References: <149789924339.10707.17736967865508385069.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <20170620105444.4d6e0330@echo.ms.redpill-linpro.com> <CA+MHpBrx=yDaecnrfE9xp49WjH_rdV3DhO3hSV9w8z0Nr6s6Ow@mail.gmail.com>
From: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 15:00:20 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHw9_iJdw_s9EOnm=hiRAX2Gi-5r4LiCJZBm2UXGnE6E4FVKWw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com>
Cc: Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no>, V6ops Chairs <v6ops-chairs@ietf.org>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-v6ops-v4v6-xlat-prefix@ietf.org, draft-ietf-v6ops-v4v6-xlat-prefix.all@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/9YCIlA4lptD7GyMKCyLuEE9rR18>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-v6ops-v4v6-xlat-prefix-01: (with DISCUSS)
Precedence: list

+1 on the good catch, Suresh. V6 addresses tend to be eye-charts :-)

Tore, please post a new version when you get a chance.
W


On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 1:38 PM, Suresh Krishnan
<suresh.krishnan@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Tore,
>   Thanks for taking care of this quickly. I have looked at the diff and it
> nicely addresses my concerns.
>
> Regards
> Suresh
>
> On Jun 20, 2017 2:24 PM, "Tore Anderson" <tore@fud.no> wrote:
>>
>> * Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com>
>>
>> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > DISCUSS:
>> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > * Section 4.2.
>> >
>> > I found the explanation to be useful but the prefix that was not
>> > selected seems
>> > to be wrong (a prefix with non-zero bits past the prefix length does not
>> > really
>> > make sense). The prefix that is adjacent to 64:ff9b::/96 is actually
>> > 64:ff9a:ffff::/48 and not 64:ff9a:ffff:ffff::/48 as described in the
>> > document.
>> > This means that most of the text that follows is incorrect. i.e. The
>> > range will
>> > be 64:ff9a:ffff:: - 64:ff9b::ffff:ffff and not 64:ff9a:ffff:ffff:: -
>> > 64:ff9b::ffff:ffff
>> >
>> > P.S.: I thought hard about whether this should be a DISCUSS or a COMMENT
>> > but I
>> > decided to go with a DISCUSS because I think it really needs to be fixed
>>
>> Hi Suresh,
>>
>> Good catch - thanks!
>>
>> I've prepared an update. I'd appreciate it if you could confirm that it
>> resolves your concern fully before I post it to the data tracker
>> though. RFC diff here:
>>
>>
>> https://tools.ietf.org//rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-v6ops-v4v6-xlat-prefix-01&url2=https://fud.no/draft-ietf-v6ops-v4v6-xlat-prefix-02.txt
>>
>> Full new draft: https://fud.no/draft-ietf-v6ops-v4v6-xlat-prefix-02.txt
>>
>> Tore



-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf

[v6ops] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-v… Suresh Krishnan
Re: [v6ops] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ie… Tore Anderson
Re: [v6ops] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ie… Suresh Krishnan
Re: [v6ops] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ie… Warren Kumari