Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-eam WGLC

Ray Hunter <v6ops@globis.net> Tue, 23 June 2015 20:05 UTC

Return-Path: <v6ops@globis.net>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5701E1A8AFC for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 13:05:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 3.08
X-Spam-Level: ***
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.08 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, HOST_EQ_STATIC=1.172, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6iOfg2xDo-IU for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 13:05:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from globis01.globis.net (092-111-140-212.static.chello.nl [92.111.140.212]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75FB91A8A01 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 13:05:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by globis01.globis.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F3C7401FC for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 22:05:43 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at globis01.globis.net
Received: from globis01.globis.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.globis.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9V8WvRirM7LA for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 22:05:40 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Rays-iMac.local (092-111-140-211.static.chello.nl [92.111.140.211]) (Authenticated sender: v6ops@globis.net) by globis01.globis.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D9187401EA for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 22:05:40 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <5589BC13.6050507@globis.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 22:05:39 +0200
From: Ray Hunter <v6ops@globis.net>
User-Agent: Postbox 3.0.11 (Macintosh/20140602)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: v6ops@ietf.org
References: <201506211800.t5LI03ux008043@irp-lnx1.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <201506211800.t5LI03ux008043@irp-lnx1.cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/JL0vCNtqfqaRedVPKfZ1E6VGcL0>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-eam WGLC
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 20:05:45 -0000


fred@cisco.com wrote:
> The working group last call for this draft announced last week
> continues for another week.  Please feel free to comment on it.
>

I have read this draft. It is very well written, the intention is clear, 
and I support it.


Three comments:

Comment 1
Sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 call for "an IPv4 Prefix identical to that of 
the IPv4 address being translated." and "an IPv6 Prefix identical to 
that of the IPv6 address being translated"

Surely that should be a "longest-matching-prefix based on CIDR [RFC4632]"

Comment 2
Operational complexity:

Suggest Adding at the end of this paragraph
/Source address selection rules on hosts may not have enough information 
to be able to select the appropriate source address for outbound 
sessions in the presence of SIIT./


Comment 3
/  Overlapping EAMs SHOULD be considered an error, and attempts to
    insert them into the EAMT SHOULD be blocked. The behaviour of an
    SIIT implementation when overlapping EAMs are present in the EAMT is
    left undefined./

I believe that this is an unnecessary restriction for correct 
specification/operation provided CIDR/longest-matching-prefix is specified.



Nits

s/The IPv4-translatable IPv6 addresses must not only be assigned to
       the IPv6 nodes participating in SIIT/
The IPv4-translatable IPv6 addresses not only has to be assigned to
       the IPv6 nodes participating in SIIT/


s/number his entire/number their entire/
s/addresses he assigns/addresses they assign/

s/are REQUIRED to/MUST/

regards,
RayH