Hi, Remi,
I get some questions about the 4rd-u draft.
1) The "tunnel packet" defined in your draft includes an IPv6 header followed
by a IPv6 fragmentation. Can this packet be defined as a tunnel packet or a
translation packet or neither or both? Since this is not the traditional
tunneling packet format, I'm not sure still using "tunnel packet" is a good
idea.
2) You mentioned NAT64+ which is upgraded to support both 4rd-u and NAT64. When
a BR receives a tunnel packet, how can it distinguish the packet is a 4rd
packet so that it can perform the 4rd procedure, or a NAT64 packet so that it
can perform the NAT64 procedure? And does the NAT64 procedure still the
traditional one?
3) Is there any possibility that a CE contains both BR mapping rule and NAT64+
mapping rule?
4) You mentioned the process to deal with a unspecified IPv4 address format in
Section 4.4. How the BR(NAT64+) deal with such a packet?
Another comment: it would be better to understand the draft if you can put some
complete data plan procedures in the example section.
Regards!
Jiang Dong
Tsinghua University
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
