Hello Fred, Here are some comments, with references to sections.
Le 14 mars 2011 à 13:54, Fred Baker a écrit : >> ... >> New version (-12) has been submitted for draft-mrw-nat66-12.txt. >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mrw-nat66-12.txt 1.2 Some caveat concerning the multihoming case may be appropriate (see 2.4 below). 2.1 IMHO, it should be mentioned here that, behind an NPTv6 having a /48, subnet 0xFFFF is forbidden: - This constraint is significant because it exists neither if global addresses are routed nor with NAPTv6. - Mentioning it only in section 2.6 and 4.2 with the justification found only in appendix B would let many readers miss it. 2.4 In case of multihoming with PA's, a limitation of NPTv6 that should be noted is that some incoming connections can fail: - In a site having global prefixes PA1 and PA2, an internal server has two global IPv6 addresses S1 and S2. - If its default exit route goes to the PA1-CPE, incoming connections addressed to S2 will fail due to ingress filtering in the PA1-CPE. (If only S1 would be advertised to clients, incoming connections would become impossible the PA1-CPE fails, a negation of what multihoming is expected to bring.) 3.2 and remainder of the document. The word datagram seems to be used instead of packet: - RFC 2460 doesn't use the word datagram for IPv6, even in case of fragmentation - In any case, NPTv6 operates individually on packets without concern with reassembling fragments. 9. Last... and least (but already signaled), my name is Remi Despres, not Remi Depres (Actually, it is Rémi Després but it is understood that ASCII doesn't permit.) Regards, RD _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
