Hi Yong, Yuchi, all This is a interesting topic. I reviewed this draft and have some comments and questions.
1) In section 5 "When receiving an incoming packet that doesn't have a match in the flow table (usually the intial packet of a new flow), CPE Switch and BR Switch MUST forward the packet to Controller. Controller MUST determine how to proceed the flow (e.g. whether to apply NAT/ NAT64 translation and/ or softwire encapsluaton/ decapuslutaion), and interpret the process into a set of forwarding rule configurations. Controller then passes these configurations to CPE Swtich and BR Switch. CPE Switch and BR Switch then configure their flow table according to these configurations," Why not let controller create flow table. Since packet is received by controller, why not let it do more? BTW, does "usually the intial packet of a new flow" mean an intial packet of each session? If so, it might lead to message congestion between switch & controller. 2) What is the concrete consideration between CPE/BR & controller? such as netconfig, i2rs. 3) Logging is important in NAT, what is the consideration about it? Maybe a switch is not suitable for logging itself. Thanks, Wei
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
