Hi Simon, Thanks for the comments. Please see inline.
Cheers, Ian On 20/01/2014 22:10, "Simon Perreault" <[email protected]> wrote: >All, > >I re-read the draft carefully. I noticed two issues: > >1. Section 5.1: > >> An IPv6 address from an assigned prefix is also required for the lwB4 >> to use as the encapsulation source address for the softwire. In >> order to enable end-to-end provisioning, the IPv6 address is >> constructed by taking the /64 prefix assigned to the WAN interface > >What happens if there is more than one prefixes assigned to the WAN >interface? > >If that case results in undefined behaviour (fine by me), it needs to be >stated in the text. [ian] More than one prefix (of the same scope) is a pretty likely case here. Behaviour does need to be defined, as if the wrong prefix is selected for the source v6 encapsulation address, then it¹s going to be discarded by the lwAFTR, for some provisioning methods at least.. Suggest that we update to make this clear. > > >2. See other mails about section 5.2.1. > > >And a minor suggestion: > >> The DNS considerations described in Section 5.5 and Section 6.4 of >> [RFC6333] SHOULD be followed. > >This SHOULD is suspicious. Suggestion: s/SHOULD be followed/also apply/ [ian] Will update. _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
