Section 4
---------
It might be best to describe operations with respect to shared addresses
first, then describe the exceptions for full IPv4 addresses or IPv4
prefixes at the end. As it is, you switch back and forth from these to
shared addresses and it is not totally clear what applies to one versus
the other. The main question that arises in my mind as a result of the
current arrangement of text is whether a NAPT is required if a full
address or prefix is provisioned. If so, what does it do? Beyond that, I
would even question whether a MAP module is needed for a full address or
an address derived from a prefix, and not simply an RFC6052-compliant
encapsulator.
Paragraph 4 talks about MAP provisioning a full address or prefix. I
don't think MAP is a provisioning process -- just talk about whether a
full address or a prefix was provisioned.
Typo in the first line of the section: s/e.g. For/e.g., for/.
Section 5
---------
Where is the definition of the optional port parameters?
Section 5.2
-----------
The first sentence of paragraph 3 relates to the naive algorithm
specified in paragraph 2 and should be part of that paragraph. I was
confused the first time I read this part.
Section 5 has now abstracted the port mapping algorithm, leaving it
unspecified. But the GMA is still there implicitly. I believe it
wouldn't hurt to say that the underlying algorithm allocates ports to a
given CE as a series of contiguous ranges, occupying the same relative
position in each in a series of fixed-sized blocks.
More later ...
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
