Dear Qiong, Please see inline.
Cheers, Med ________________________________ De : Qiong [mailto:bingxu...@gmail.com] Envoyé : mercredi 14 mars 2012 00:50 À : Francis Dupont Cc : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP; Softwires WG; draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite; draft-penno-softwire-sd...@tools.ietf.org Objet : Re: [Softwires] draft-penno-softwire-sdnat vs. draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite > (2) Unlike draft-penno-*, draft-cui-* does not mandate any proffered > provisioning means for port ranges; a list of alternatives is > provided in draft-cui-* without any preference (this is deployment- > specific): => but the ICMP-based solution is deeply broken so is it a real advantage? [Qiong] In draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite, we have described the "ICMP processing" in section 10. And we have verified that it works fine in all ICMP-based protocols, e.g. ping, tracert, etc. There is no problem here. [Med] I know it is confusing but these are two distinct issues. draft-penno-* defines a new method using ICMP to learn ports. Please refer to http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-penno-softwire-sdnat-02#section-5
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
