Hi Senthil, Good point. So, that would give us:
> 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 error (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]. Works for me. OK with you Woj? Cheers, Ian On 3 Mar 2014, at 19:16, Senthil Sivakumar (ssenthil) <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Ian, > 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). > > Does the highlighted part mean "If the lwB4 receives an ICMP error message", > if so can you replace it as suggested? > I am not really sure why icmp identifier field is mentioned in there. Other > than that I am ok with the text. > > Thanks > Senthil > > > From: Ian Farrer <[email protected]> > Date: Monday, March 3, 2014 1:54 PM > To: Wojciech Dec <[email protected]>, Senthil Sivakumar <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Softwires-wg > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6-06.txt > > 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
