Hi Woj / Senthil,
Putting the other discussions to the side for a moment, can we tackle the
fragmentation text you proposed as this should be easily resolvable?
>
>
> Suggested text:
> The NAT44 in the lwB4 MUST implement the behavior for ICMP message conforming
> to the
> best current practice documented in [RFC5508].
> If a LwB4 receives an ICMP error message without the ICMP
> identifier field for errors that is detected inside a IPv6 tunnel, the
> node should relay the ICMP error message to the original source.
> This behavior SHOULD be implemented conforming to the section 8 of
> [RFC2473].
> FOr TCP and UDP traffic the NAT44 implemented in the LwB4 SHOULD conform
> with the behavior
> and best current practice documented in [RFC4787], [RFC5508], and
> [RFC5382].
>
What about the following wording, tweaked after reading RFC6888 (Common Reqs
for CGNs), replacing Section 5.2:
---
For TCP and UDP traffic the NAPT44 implemented in the lwB4 SHOULD conform with
the behaviour and best current practices documented in
[RFC4787], [RFC508], and [RFC5382]. If the lwB4 supports DCCP, then the
requirements in [RFC5597] SHOULD be implemented.
The NAPT44 in the lwB4 MUST implement ICMP message handling behaviour
conforming to the best current practice documented in [RFC5508]
If the lwB4 receives an ICMP message without the ICMP identifier field for
errors detected inside the IPv6 tunnel, the node should relay
the ICMP error message to the original source (the lwAFTR).
This behaviour SHOULD be implemented conforming to the section 8 of [RFC2473].
----
@Senthil, as this is a change to the wording previously agreed, could you let
me know if you’re OK with the proposed new text?
Cheers,
Ian
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
