Hi Rémi, Thank you for the comments.
Please see inline. Cheers, Med -----Message d'origine----- De : Rémi Després [mailto:[email protected]] Envoyé : lundi 9 mai 2011 11:10 À : Satoru Matsushima; BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP; Yiu Lee; Olaf Bonness; Isabel Borges Cc : Softwires-wg Objet : Re: [Softwires] Motivation draft for stateless v4 over v6 solution Satoru-san, Med, all authors, Congratulation for this important I-D, and for the quick convergence among all of you. Here are, after a detailed review, some remarks: 1. Sec 2 - Terminology (and some other instances of "port range") "Port space", as used in sec. 5.3, or "port set", would be more appropriate than "port range" in a motivation document because: - A port range is a particular case of port set or port space, but not the reverse. - At least one documented solution uses port sets that contain several port ranges. Med: I don't see much the difference between a port range and a port set. IMO, what is important is to use consistent terminology in the document. Do you have any pointer (other that the solution document you are referring to) where "port set" is defined? If needed, I can update the text to state that both "port range" and "port set" are used interchangeably. 2. Sec 3. IPv4 Service Use case While the "Host based model is out of scope", it would be IMHO good to note that: "The model can however apply to any host that includes a CPE function". Med: I prefer having the explicit statement to say the host-based model is out of scope. 5.1. Dependency Between IPv4 and IPv6 Address Assignments The I-D says "Providing two IPv6 prefixes avoids the complexity related to the adaptation of the IPv6 addressing scheme to the IPv4 addressing scheme". But some solutions don't require to adapt the IPv6 addressing scheme to that of IPv4. (A particular example is described in sec 3.2 of draft-despres-softwire-sam-01. With it, several IPv4 prefixes are supported without any impact on the IPv6 addressing scheme) Suggestion: after "complexity", add "that may be". Med: Done. FWIW, I also updated that section with a comment received from R. Maglione: "For Service Providers requiring to apply specific policies on per Address-Family (e.g., IPv4, IPv6), some provisioning tools (e.g., DHCPv6 option) may be required to derive in a deterministic way the IPv6 address to be used for the IPv4 traffic based on the IPv6 prefix delegated to the home network. " 5.3. Port Randomization The I-D says "Other means than the (IPv4) source port randomization to provide protection against attacks should be used (e.g., use [I-D.vixie-dnsext-dns0x20] to protect against DNS attacks, [RFC5961] to improve the robustness of TCP against Blind In-Window Attacks)". However: - The solution cited as example is from an expired I-D. - Another solution is that the DNS server of the operator be accessible in IPv6, and that the CPE translates IPv4 DNS queries to send them to this server. In this case, no port-set restriction applies. Suggestion: - Delete the paragraph, or, - Note that IPv6 DNS servers is a solution (and avoid the reference to I-D.vixie-dnsext-dns0x20). Med: I updated the text to mention that using IPv6 is one of the solutions. I think this I-D should become asap a WG draft. (This would preferably be with some improvements like those proposed above, but this isn't IMHO a prerequisite.) The sooner it reaches RFC status, the better. Regards, RD Le 6 mai 2011 à 12:39, Satoru Matsushima a écrit : > Dear colleague, > > We've uploaded an I-D to express our motivation of stateless IPv4 over IPv6 > as an IPv6 transition solution. Since the outcome of recharter session in > last softwires wg meeting, ADs required the motivation draft to standardize > stateless v4 over v6 solution at IETF. > > We, authors of the draft, have been trying to clearly explain our motivation, > scope, and current open questions for stateless solution as much as possible > in this draft. We believe that it should be helpful to understand what our > motivation is. > > Please find it out from following url: > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-operators-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation-00.txt > > We'd like to have your kind review, and comments, also welcome to discuss > about the motivation in the softwires mailing list. > > Best regards, > --satoru > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
