Hi,
Thanks for this draft. A few more comments from me:
> 3.1.1. Transport
Probably useful to state that this is layer 4. I understand that over
at the ITU-T they have changed the meaning of the word 'transport' to
mean layer 2 (presumably in an effort to forget about OSI).
...
> The consensus of the
> group is that such site renumbering is a completely unacceptable
> requirement and as such, these types of solutions are not of interest
> for further exploration.
Mild rewrite as
The consensus of the
group is that such site renumbering is widely unacceptable for
operational reasons and thus, these types of solutions are not of
interest for further exploration in this group.
> 3.1.2. Translation
Reading further, it occurred to me that this really should
be called Map & Translate, and that we should distinguish
stateful and stateless translation.
Also distinguish reversible and non-reversible translation.
It would be good if this and the following section brought out
the isomorphisms and differences between translation and
encapsulation very clearly.
(NAT is just swapping RLOC and EID, for example, but NAPT is
munging EIDs together before doing the swap.)
> 4.1. No manual renumbering of end hosts
>
> There is clear consensus in the group that renumbering of sites must
> not require manual intervention on a per-host basis.
Yes. You might consider a reference to draft-carpenter-renum-needs-work
(the -02 draft will be out in a day or two). I'm not suggesting that
should be an RRG document; in fact it's being discussed in the IETF
Ops Area. But it does discuss exactly this topic.
Brian
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
