[v6ops] Comments on draft-hazeyama-widecamp-ipv6-only-experience-01

GangChen <phdgang@gmail.com> Wed, 14 March 2012 09:04 UTC

Return-Path: <phdgang@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EA3921F86E1 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 02:04:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.209
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.209 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.210, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_35=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2HhX7oxc2XcB for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 02:04:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-f172.google.com (mail-we0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 695B221F8602 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 02:04:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by werb10 with SMTP id b10so1742317wer.31 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 02:04:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=xDq7owiUK4VJnLXd3b/RyC3sAYjee8ECnf/7nhZaQro=; b=rK00+gtxI0rHoYxPsS8mjQsyNI//GYzz5Cfu+hM5xwzybxxLYxRCU0xwP+97qaOGeH kxF6gAPcfe3Xt8Pixe78tH1gH/ldb9cpvOP7avIWetLzgr2TYjzrOLt6PHetUseZAkLV 2gUhbeIvlrSoLKO5PbYlgM2mrzOu6ixJm8WUpZnpFPFxsKwJkbsBYM5VsMbZ/KVms8Km orNjlQfoy9HrfkgoAkYxjPdvwGwjsjksC1dwQCsKbMlf0wU/310cZN2cOo8hgq2mlJoc zqpBCRQFfQPe/Os/jc6CFXf2VdRFc0cvr/boEArlM8vP5+G5HZklwVWrwrfBRZEMbyLu 5OkQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.137.97 with SMTP id x75mr1151363wei.25.1331715867309; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 02:04:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.180.7.105 with HTTP; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 02:04:27 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:04:27 +0800
Message-ID: <CAM+vMERyvyL4r5=vhkUYTg8D2eFSnA98a54ybtMJU6a9FUPwgA@mail.gmail.com>
From: GangChen <phdgang@gmail.com>
To: v6ops <v6ops@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Subject: [v6ops] Comments on draft-hazeyama-widecamp-ipv6-only-experience-01
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 09:04:29 -0000

Hello authors,

Generally, the draft provided informative testing data and pointed the
failures cases. I guess some failures are related to implementations;
some are due to protocol inconsistency. It's better to make categories
so it's beneficial for the group identifying the workaround.

More detailed:

1. Some testing results have been shown in tables of section 4.2.
Wondering to known what reasons cause the data transmission failures
in the case of Frag. C => S on table 7.

2. I guess some statements on "dependency between IPv4 and IPv6
address" should be clarified further.

3. In table10, why is the hairpinning not supported? 4rd could do that
in hub&spoke mode between CE-CE communications. And 464XLAT adpoted
RFC 6146, which could support hairpinning as well.

BRs

Gang