Hi Suresh, Thanks for reviewing the draft and provding valuable comments. Answers inline. In general all the issues should be easy to fix. Please expect a new version soon.
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Suresh Krishnan <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi authors, > I went over this draft to check whether it is ready to advance from > the WG. The latest revision of the draft is highly improved and has > addressed most of the concerns I had on clarity. I do have a few minor > concerns though, and I would like to see them addressed before sending > the draft along the publication process. > > * Introduction > > The draft needs a bit more motivation on why an ISP with a lot of IPv4 > address resources does not simply run dual stack. Sure > > * Section 3 > > 4over6 CE: This section seems to be stating that the 4over6 CE does not > provide IPv6 service to the customer network if it is a CPE. Is this > true? If so, this seems to be wrong and needs to be fixed. You are right, we actually does not restrict that. Will fix this issue > > * Section 4 > > It is not clear how this mechanism "integrates easily" with DS-Lite as > claimed. Can you add a bit more text on how this will be accomplished OK. > * Section 5.1 > > The arrows in the figure are confusing. e.g. what information does the > 4over6 CE provide to the DHCPv6 server. If none, why is the arrow > bidirectional? Suggest making the arrows unidirectional to show the flow > of information. The original thoughts are showing DHCP is a mutliple-step interaction... Will make the direction of the first two arrows as right->left. > > * Section 6 > > Which DHCPv6 option does the 4over6 CE use to get the BR address. Is it > the AFTR-Name option? This needs to be clarified. Yes. We have put a reference to RFC6334 in section 6. Will add the option name in next version > _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
