On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 12:02:25PM +0000, [email protected] wrote:
> Hi Toerless,
>
> The new version looks much more better. Thanks.
Great.
> Some comments about these two minor point:
>
> - "IPv4 to IPv6 NAT can be used." - Do you mean RFC7915
> I intentionally did not want to elaborate on the details of which of the
> 15? different
> NAT options can be used best. When i worked on this, i got a working setup
> with NAT-PT and i think
> also NAT64 statefull (RFC6146). This was mostly driven by whatever old
> router OS versions
> where available.Also your note re. rfc7757. The main issue is that the
> stateless translations would
> require matching address structures in he ACP, and i certainly would not
> want to fudge the ACP design
> to support NAT better. Rather use some horrific NAT option. That should
> even accelerate pushing IPv6
> into NOC/OAM equipment.
>
> So, i didn't add any pointers to those RFCs you mentioned. I think its good
> if this is
> left as an exercise to the reader ;-)
>
> Med: Fair. Please change "IPv4 to IPv6 NAT can be used" to "IPv4 to IPv6
> translation can be used" because it is more than "Address" translation.
Please check out the just posted -05. After Brian also complained about the use
of NAT i
gave in (aka: both you and brians desire to get this redone where critical mass
;-)).
There should now be no use of "NAT" in the doc, instead SIIT and EAM and how we
would suggest to build a solution with them for ACP connect (aka: suggetions for
prefixes to be mapped via EAM), but that the details of the solution are out of
scope.
> - "I'm afraid NoO " - i did not get that.
>
> Med: This was related to this part of your text:
>
> ==
> Overall, the use of NAT is especially subject to the RoI (Return of
> Investment) considerations,
> ========
>
> The reasoning about NAT and RoI may seem to be intuitive, but I'm afraid it
> does not reflect the deployment reality. The use of NAT may even come for
> free or be a function of the traffic and so on.
> I would delete the mention of RoI.
Well, i did not mean to imply that NAT/SIIT would be too expensive to deploy, i
rather
wanted to be neutral because i too had a customer that said "i am happy to use
NAT
when you give me a working recipe". Which i was able to do. But i also do not
want
to promote this of course.
If you could suggest any better text to keep the balance, i'd happliy take it
;-)
Cheers
Toerless
>
> Cheers,
> Med
>
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > De : Toerless Eckert [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Envoyé : jeudi 27 juillet 2017 20:52
> > À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN
> > Cc : [email protected]; [email protected]
> > Objet : Re: review comments draft-ietf-anima-stable-connectivity-03-rev
> > Med.doc
> >
> > Thanks a lot, Mohamed for the thorough review!
> >
> > I pushed -04 of the draft out with your changes incorporated. IMHO it's
> > all great textual improvements but no logical changes, aka: should be fine
> > for prior reviewers.
> >
> > Diff:
> >
> > http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/rfcdiff.pyht?url1=https://tools.ietf.o
> > rg/id/draft-ietf-anima-stable-connectivity-
> > 03.txt&url2=https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-anima-stable-connectivity-
> > 04.txt
> >
> > Your original review doc:
> >
> > https://github.com/anima-wg/autonomic-control-plane/blob/master/draft-
> > ietf-anima-stable-connectivity/03-review-mohamed.boucadair.doc
> >
> > My reply comments:
> >
> > https://github.com/anima-wg/autonomic-control-plane/blob/master/draft-
> > ietf-anima-stable-connectivity/03-review-mohamed.boucadair-reply.txt
> >
> > While incorporating your review, i also figured that it would be good if
> > ACP connect
> > would allow auto-configuration of NMS hosts, so i added a paragraph to
> > mandate RFC4191,
> > but i didn't rev ACP draft just for that yet, so here's just diff on
> > github for that;
> >
> > http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/rfcdiff.pyht?url1=https://tools.ietf.o
> > rg/id/draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane-
> > 08.txt&url2=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/anima-wg/autonomic-control-
> > plane/af74117400b6a5a7fca1acf2ab910d64a580a5c9/draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-
> > control-plane/draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane.txt
> >
> > Cheers
> > Toerless
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 05:49:07AM +0000, [email protected]
> > wrote:
> > > Dear Toreless,
> > >
> > > I'm resending this document as I didn't receive an ACK from your side.
> > >
> > > Please consider those as part of the WGLC comments.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Med
> > >
> > > > -----Message d'origine-----
> > > > De : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN
> > > > Envoyé : vendredi 7 juillet 2017 14:58
> > > > À : '[email protected]'
> > > > Objet : Envoi d?un message : draft-ietf-anima-stable-connectivity-03-
> > rev
> > > > Med.doc
> > > >
> > > > Dear Toreless,
> > > >
> > > > Please find some comments about this draft.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Med
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Anima mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
--
---
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
