Hello Remi,

Here are few comments for the draft.
Generally speaking, I'm not sure always carrying fragmentation header
in 4rd domain is a good idea.
Since the receiver always treat that as regular fragments.
That means it tries to reassembly on the BRs and cause some potential risks.
Some analysis is in draft-gont-6man-ipv6-atomic-fragments-00.txt

Secondly, -04 added NAT64+ parts.
If I understood correctly, there are no additional requirements for NAT64 boxes.
The only change is to add NAT64+ mapping rule into the domain.
I guess the intention is to let 4rd-u become friendly to NAT64, since
some operators already deployed it.
IMHO, that seems unnecessary. NAT64 is another standalone system.
4rd-U could naturally coexist with NAT64 by taking proper routing planning.
And, you have a good designing on V bits.
There should be no additional works requested to make these two sets
into unified one.
Besides, I guess NAT64+ mapping rule in some sense would do same thing
in I-D.ietf-behave-nat64-discovery-heuristic

Going into more detailed, I guess there are some editorial suggestions.
In Table 2:
I guess the field of IDENTIFICATION is missing

In R-5, there is term "Domain-IPv6-suffix". I guess it should be "Rule
IPv6 suffix"
In R-7, it uses the indicator of k. I guess that is different meaning
with k in R-5?
In Table 3, at the eighth column, it should be N-N-Y. Otherwise, it
would be duplicated with sixth column
I might back with more comments after my second review.
Many thanks

Gang


2012/3/6, Rémi Després <[email protected]>:
> Hello all,
>
> The new version of the unified 4rd proposal is now available at:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-despres-softwire-4rd-u-04
>
> A summarized comparison of its features with those of MAP-T and MAP-E is
> about to be posted in draft-despres-softwire-stateless-analysis-tool-01.
>
> All questions and comments are most welcome.
>
> Regards,
> Remi, Reinaldo, Jacni, Yiu
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Softwires mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires

Reply via email to