Re: [Softwires] Comments on 4rd-u-04

Le 2012-03-13 à 01:59, Maoke a écrit : hi Remi, 2012/3/12 Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net Maoke, 1. What you call the cost of IANA authority on the use of V-bit is neither a development nor an operational cost. Once standardization is done, the cost becomes 0. exactly.

Re: [Softwires] Draft 4rd-u-05 is available

Remi, discussion on R-16 of Sec 4.7: R-16: If a CE or BR receives an ICMPv6 error message [RFC4443], it MUST synthesize an ICMPv4 error packet [RFC0792]. This packet MUST contain the first 8 octets of the discarded-packet IP payload. now the ICMPv6 error message contains the payload

[Softwires] draft-penno-softwire-sdnat vs. draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite

Hi Reinaldo, all, I read the updated version of draft-penno-softwire-sdnat. I like this new version. Below some questions for clarification: (1) draft-penno is converging to what is documented in draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite: (*) Question 1: It is not clear in text if

Re: [Softwires] IPv4 Residual Deployment - Unified-standard proposal 4rd

2012/3/13 Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net Le 2012-03-13 à 03:18, Maoke a écrit : 2012/3/12 Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net Le 2012-03-12 à 10:21, Maoke a écrit : hi Remi, 2012/3/12 Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net 2012-03-12 04:09, Maoke: ... btw, BR also depends

Re: [Softwires] Draft 4rd-u-05 is available

Hi Behcet, Please see in line. Le 2012-03-12 à 23:09, Behcet Sarikaya a écrit : Hi Remi, My quick comments: editorial on abstract: - The 4rd automatic tunneling mechanism makes IPv4 Residual Deployment possible via IPv6 networks without maintaining for this per-customer states in

Re: [Softwires] IPv4 Residual Deployment - Unified-standard proposal 4rd

2012-03-13 12:02, Maoke : 2012/3/13 Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net ... The 4rd mechanism is for protocols that have ports at their usual place (all existing protocols that have ports have them at the same place, even if using another checksum algorithm like SCTP). may you have a

Re: [Softwires] draft-penno-softwire-sdnat vs. draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite

In your previous mail you wrote: (*) Question 1: It is not clear in text if there is a second NAT in the AFTR or not. Could you please confirm/infirm a second NAT is present? = there is one but: - it translates only port numbers following an algorithm - the NAT is

Re: [Softwires] draft-penno-softwire-sdnat vs.draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite

I prefer what draft-tsou-softwire-port-set-algorithms-analysis calls GMA (still trivial to implement and to use but harder to trace). I agree. GMA is defined here, btw - http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mdt-softwire-mapping-address-and-port-0 2#section-4.1 Cheers, Rajiv -Original

Re: [Softwires] draft-penno-softwire-sdnat vs. draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite

Hi Francis, Thanks for your reply. Please see inline. On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 12:55 AM, Francis Dupont francis.dup...@fdupont.frwrote: In your previous mail you wrote: (*) Question 1: It is not clear in text if there is a second NAT in the AFTR or not. Could you please

Re: [Softwires] draft-penno-softwire-sdnat vs. draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite

2012/3/14, Francis Dupont francis.dup...@fdupont.fr: In your previous mail you wrote: (*) Question 1: It is not clear in text if there is a second NAT in the AFTR or not. Could you please confirm/infirm a second NAT is present? = there is one but: - it translates

Re: [Softwires] IPv4 Residual Deployment - Unified-standard proposal 4rd

2012/3/13 Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net 2012-03-13 12:02, Maoke : 2012/3/13 Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net ... The 4rd mechanism is for protocols that have ports at their usual place (all existing protocols that have ports have them at the same place, even if using another