Yes, for the ICMP handling part, this works for me. Cheers
On 3 March 2014 20:40, Ian Farrer <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 fieldfor > 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 > <http://tools.ietf.org/html/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] <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2473#section-8>. > FOr TCP and UDP traffic the NAT44 implemented in the LwB4 SHOULD conform > with the behavior > and best current practice documented in [RFC4787 > <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4787>], [RFC5508 > <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5508>], and > [RFC5382 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/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
