I have finally gone through the latest revision of the ds-lite draft and overall I think it looks good. I only have two small comments/questions:
Section 4.2 and 4.4 defines an addressing scheme for the ds-lite tunnel and also talks about the addressing of the home network but I have a problem understanding the reasoning behind it and the conclusion. Why does the tunnel addresses have to be well defined while the home network doesn't have to, or does it? Since the NAT state always will be based on the IPv6 source address the IPv4 addresses shouldn't really matter as long as it is a 1918 address. Section 6 seems very ambiguous and more about saying that in more complex cases you might want to consider a different solution rather than defining encapsulation methods. It needs more explanation and has to be a bit clearer on what actually is expected when supporting other types encapsulation. Right now I don't see what the benefit there would be in having multiple encapsulation methods. A small nit is that the terminology changes throughout the document, which I guess is due to the merger with the snat draft. This makes it look somewhat like two different solutions. It is mainly chapter 5 that need to be changed to be more in line with the rest of the document. -Mikael _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
