Hi Ole, I've some comments on draft-ietf-softwire-map-01.txt:
1) Section 5, bullet 3 "Default Mapping Rule". Is there a reason to preclude the usage of more than one Mapping Rule for destinations outside the MAP domain? I would consider desirable that a network provider is able to use different BRs for routing optimization. Example: - one/several BRs for legacy IPv4 services provided by the operator (IPTV, ... using IPv4 prefixes owned by the operator) - one/several towards transit ISPs 2) Section 5.1.1, last sentence It says "For a=0, j MAY be 0 to allow...." But if j would be different from 0, then the factor "R * M * j" in the port number equation in section 5.1 bullet 1 would be a multiple from 65536. As a result, the port number would be invalid if no "modulos 65536" is used, or it would be fully equivalent to j=0 if modulos is used. In the previous sentence you also say that "j larger than 0" ensures excluding the system ports. This is not stricly true as it depends on "a" being less than 7. You should rethink the whole paragraph, and also if you want to mandate that system ports are always excluded (implying a minimum value for "a" and a minimum value for "A"), or if you want to allow for them being also provisioning, what would require some other "MAYs". 4) Section 5.1.2, first sentence. I would recommend that yo put the PSID length k within parenthesis as you do with the second example a few lines below. It would remark that given R=1024 and a=4, then PSID length is derived from it (namely log2(R)). 5) Section 5.2, 2nd last sentence above Figure 4. It says "A MAP node MUST reserve the first IPv6 prefix in a End-user IPv6 prefix for the purpose of MAP". I find confusing speaking about "the first prefix in a prefix". Should it rather say "A MAP node MUST reserve the prefix using this first subnet for the purpose of MAP"? (or similar like "....using the MAP subnet ID...". Best regards, Paco 2012/6/28 <[email protected]>: > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the Softwires Working Group of the IETF. > > Title : Mapping of Address and Port (MAP) > Author(s) : Ole Troan > Wojciech Dec > Xing Li > Congxiao Bao > Yu Zhai > Satoru Matsushima > Tetsuya Murakami > Filename : draft-ietf-softwire-map-01.txt > Pages : 33 > Date : 2012-06-28 > > Abstract: > This document describes a mechanism for transporting IPv4 packets > across an IPv6 network, and a generic mechanism for mapping between > IPv6 addresses and IPv4 addresses and transport layer ports. > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-map > > There's also a htmlized version available at: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-map-01 > > A diff from previous version is available at: > http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-softwire-map-01 > > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
