Hi Remi,
Thanks for the feedback.
On Oct 29, 2010, at 12:46 PM, Rémi Després wrote:
1. Sec 8, 2nd paragraph
Isn't it bits 49-64 instead of 34-48?
Yes, this will be fixed. Actually, it is 33-48.
2. Sec 11, last paragraph, (rightly) has "NAT66 devices with more
than one internal interface SHOULD assign a (non-0xFFFF) subnet"
This isn't sufficient.
It must also apply to networks that have several NAT66 devices with
a single interface in each.
Besides, an explanation of why it is so should IMHO be added.
It is not necessarily the case that a NAT66 device will be aware that
there are other NAT66 devices attached to the same network. It is up
to the network administrators to determine if multiple NAT66 devices
on a network will be configured to use the same internal prefix or
different ones.
Why do you think special wording is needed for this case?
-
3. Sec 13 has "it is RECOMMENDED that NAT66 devices include an IPv6
firewall function, and the firewall function SHOULD be configured by
default to block all incoming connections."
Wouldn't a reference to draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security be
appropriate?
Yes.
4. Sec 15 has a typo in my name.
Oh, sorry. I'll fix that.
Margaret
_______________________________________________
nat66 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
