[v6ops] Re: New Version Notification for draft-link-v6ops-claton-03.txt

[Jen Linkova <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jordi,

On Mon, Jul 1, 2024 at 7:43 AM [e-mail]
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> >> Then, instead ensure that is well understood that the CLAT can be also in a CE:
> >>   *  CLAT is performed by the host itself.
> >> So:
> >>   *  CLAT is performed by the host itself or a CE.
> >> or
> >>   *  CLAT is performed by the node (host or router).
> >
> > This paragraph is describing the “Wireless” mode (CLAT on a host)
> > outside of 3GPP - in Wi-Fi hotspots, enterprise networks etc. So in
> > this scenario it’s important that CLAT is performed by a host, not a
> > CE router.
>
> The point is that there are UEs that are CE. For example, a well known case is T-Mobile that provided a CE with 464XLAT for broadband provisioning, as they don’t have GPON, etc.

How about we say ' CLAT is performed by the UE'?

> >> May be we need to consider defining a maximum delay instead of "The delay is implementation specific”.
> >
> > If we want to do this, I’d rather specify the default value and let
> > implementations choose whether they want to use it or not. I guess the
> > delay shall be comparable with an RTT between the client and the DHCP
> > server(s) - but I do not know what value to choose here. Any
> > suggestions?
>
> The reason why we needed HE was because the fallback delay from IPv6 to IPv4 was not predefined … I think we should avoid those type of situations.
>The problem is that the RTT to DHCP servers can vary a lot in different contexts.

Exactly. So, for example, why shall we prevent the node from
remembering the median RTT for previous connections to the given
network, and using it as a timeout value?

If we are going to define that maximum delay, what do you think it should be?

-- 
Cheers, Jen Linkova