Dear wg,
I've reviewed the draft and have some comments in addition to Tom's. May the
comments make the draft better.
Please correct me if there is any mistake.
Best Regards,
Qi
1. In Fig 1, there is an element called the Core Router. Does it mean MAP BR? I
think the terms should be consistent.
2. Currently, there is no DMR in MAP-E. The IPv6 address of the BR could be
provisioned by the DS-Lite AFTR Name option. But the DMR is still in use in
MAP-T. IMO, this is an issue. But maybe the WG could give some guidance on
handling this.
3. Section 4.2.2
This part talks about sub-domain, which is a term that is not defined in the
MAP draft. I think there should be some text about the what a 'sub-domain' is
and how to differentiate 'sub-domain' from a MAP domain.
4. Section 4.2.5, para 3:
It is the wg consensus that the non-contiguous port set has nothing to do with
'better security'. I recommend text about this be removed.
5. Section 4.3, page 14:
'as long as it is up and ready to take over the virtual IPv6 address,
quick failover can be achieved.'
Does the term 'virtual IPv6 address' stand for anycast IPv6 address, or
something else?
6. Section 4.3, page 14:
'Therefore, when using anycast addresses, it is RECOMMENDED that they
be only used as destination address, and never as source addresses.
BRs SHOULD be configured to accept traffic sent to the anycast
address, but use an unicast address as source.'
The packets from the BR to the CE is :
Src: BR's unicast addr, Dest: CE's unicast addr
But what should be the destination address of the packets from CE to BR after
the CE receives the responses sent from/via the BR? The BR's unicast addr, or
the anycast addr? IMO, there should be some text like 'The CE SHOULD always use
the anycast address of the BR if there is one when sending packets to the BR.'
But there is another issue (maybe minor): how can the CE determine which is the
anycast address?
Some Nits:
1. There are some acronyms in the draft, which are better to be expanded when
first used.
2. The para below Fig 2:
For model A/B, one CE
only need (needs) to correspond to a BR, while in model C one CE have (has)
to
correspond with multiple BRs. Figure 3 illustrate (illustrates) a typical
case,
where the home network have (has) multiple connections to multiple
providers or multiple logical connections to the same provider.
3. Section 4.2, 1st para:
However, all CEs within the sub-domain will have the same BMR. in which the
BMR of all CEs is the same.
=> However, all CEs within the sub-domain will have the same BMR.
4. Section 4.2.3.2, 1st para:
Assigning all BMRs in MAP domain to each CE as FMRs, Mesh
communications can be achieved among all CEs.
=> By assigning all BMRs in a MAP domain to each CE as the FMR, Mesh
communications can be achieved among all CEs.
5. Section 4.2.6, para 3:
For the ISP who have number
of scattered IPv4 address prefixes, in order to reduce the FMRs,
according to needs of ports they can divide different class.
=> have -> has, reduce the FMRs -> reduce the number of FMRs, class -> classes
6. Section 4.2.7, 3. PMTU and fragmentation, para 2
cannot to -> cannot do
7. Section 4.3, para 2
the path from the CE to an IPv4 peer via the BR should be close
to the one that would be taken if the CE had native IPv4 connectivity.
=> the path from the CE to an IPv4 peer via the BR should be closer
than that would be taken if the CE had native IPv4 connectivity.
8. Section 6.2.2, para 1
When a network evolve (evolves) to a post-IPv6 era. (,) It might
be good for ISP to consider implement enforcements rules to help IPv6
migration.
=> When a network evolves to a post-IPv6 era, it might
be good for ISPs to consider to implement enforcement rules to help IPv6
migration._______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
