On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 12:02:25PM +0000, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote: > Hi Toerless, > > The new version looks much more better. Thanks.
Great. > Some comments about these two minor point: > > - "IPv4 to IPv6 NAT can be used." - Do you mean RFC7915 > I intentionally did not want to elaborate on the details of which of the > 15? different > NAT options can be used best. When i worked on this, i got a working setup > with NAT-PT and i think > also NAT64 statefull (RFC6146). This was mostly driven by whatever old > router OS versions > where available.Also your note re. rfc7757. The main issue is that the > stateless translations would > require matching address structures in he ACP, and i certainly would not > want to fudge the ACP design > to support NAT better. Rather use some horrific NAT option. That should > even accelerate pushing IPv6 > into NOC/OAM equipment. > > So, i didn't add any pointers to those RFCs you mentioned. I think its good > if this is > left as an exercise to the reader ;-) > > Med: Fair. Please change "IPv4 to IPv6 NAT can be used" to "IPv4 to IPv6 > translation can be used" because it is more than "Address" translation. Please check out the just posted -05. After Brian also complained about the use of NAT i gave in (aka: both you and brians desire to get this redone where critical mass ;-)). There should now be no use of "NAT" in the doc, instead SIIT and EAM and how we would suggest to build a solution with them for ACP connect (aka: suggetions for prefixes to be mapped via EAM), but that the details of the solution are out of scope. > - "I'm afraid NoO " - i did not get that. > > Med: This was related to this part of your text: > > == > Overall, the use of NAT is especially subject to the RoI (Return of > Investment) considerations, > ======== > > The reasoning about NAT and RoI may seem to be intuitive, but I'm afraid it > does not reflect the deployment reality. The use of NAT may even come for > free or be a function of the traffic and so on. > I would delete the mention of RoI. Well, i did not mean to imply that NAT/SIIT would be too expensive to deploy, i rather wanted to be neutral because i too had a customer that said "i am happy to use NAT when you give me a working recipe". Which i was able to do. But i also do not want to promote this of course. If you could suggest any better text to keep the balance, i'd happliy take it ;-) Cheers Toerless > > Cheers, > Med > > > -----Message d'origine----- > > De : Toerless Eckert [mailto:t...@cs.fau.de] > > Envoyé : jeudi 27 juillet 2017 20:52 > > À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN > > Cc : anima@ietf.org; draft-ietf-anima-stable-connectiv...@ietf.org > > Objet : Re: review comments draft-ietf-anima-stable-connectivity-03-rev > > Med.doc > > > > Thanks a lot, Mohamed for the thorough review! > > > > I pushed -04 of the draft out with your changes incorporated. IMHO it's > > all great textual improvements but no logical changes, aka: should be fine > > for prior reviewers. > > > > Diff: > > > > http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/rfcdiff.pyht?url1=https://tools.ietf.o > > rg/id/draft-ietf-anima-stable-connectivity- > > 03.txt&url2=https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-anima-stable-connectivity- > > 04.txt > > > > Your original review doc: > > > > https://github.com/anima-wg/autonomic-control-plane/blob/master/draft- > > ietf-anima-stable-connectivity/03-review-mohamed.boucadair.doc > > > > My reply comments: > > > > https://github.com/anima-wg/autonomic-control-plane/blob/master/draft- > > ietf-anima-stable-connectivity/03-review-mohamed.boucadair-reply.txt > > > > While incorporating your review, i also figured that it would be good if > > ACP connect > > would allow auto-configuration of NMS hosts, so i added a paragraph to > > mandate RFC4191, > > but i didn't rev ACP draft just for that yet, so here's just diff on > > github for that; > > > > http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/rfcdiff.pyht?url1=https://tools.ietf.o > > rg/id/draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane- > > 08.txt&url2=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/anima-wg/autonomic-control- > > plane/af74117400b6a5a7fca1acf2ab910d64a580a5c9/draft-ietf-anima-autonomic- > > control-plane/draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane.txt > > > > Cheers > > Toerless > > > > On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 05:49:07AM +0000, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com > > wrote: > > > Dear Toreless, > > > > > > I'm resending this document as I didn't receive an ACK from your side. > > > > > > Please consider those as part of the WGLC comments. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Med > > > > > > > -----Message d'origine----- > > > > De : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN > > > > Envoyé : vendredi 7 juillet 2017 14:58 > > > > À : 'tte+i...@cs.fau.de' > > > > Objet : Envoi d?un message : draft-ietf-anima-stable-connectivity-03- > > rev > > > > Med.doc > > > > > > > > Dear Toreless, > > > > > > > > Please find some comments about this draft. > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Med > > > > _______________________________________________ > Anima mailing list > Anima@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima -- --- t...@cs.fau.de _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list Anima@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima