I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation-04
Motivations for Carrier-side Stateless IPv4 over IPv6
Migration Solutions
Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern
Review Date: 5-Oct-2012
IETF LC End Date: 17-Oct-2012
IESG Telechat date: 25-Oct-2012
Summary: This document is nearly ready for publication as an
Informational RFC.
Major issues:
I may be misreading the first sub-paragraph in section 3.3.2. It
seems to assert that no ALGs are necessary with stateless 4v6 solution
as "the payload of IPv4 packets is not altered in the path." This seems
to make very strong assumptions on the end host behavior, which are not
called out in the document.
Minor issues:
It is unfortunate that the elaborations on the motivations do not
correlate with the initial list of those motivations. They are not in
the same order, and do not use the same titles. This makes it harder
for the reader who, after reading the base list, is looking for more
explanation of item(i).
The description of the anycast capability (Section 3 bullet 5 and
section 3.2.1 first bullet) is very unclear. Since packets are not
addressed to the address translator, this reader is left confused as to
what "anycast" capability is preserved by this and damaged by stateful
NAT. A few additional words in section 3.2.1 would be helpful.
The issues raised in section 4 of the document ("Discussion") are
interesting. But they do not seem related to the motivation for seeking
a stateless v4v6 solution. They seem to be details of how such a
solution might be built. Why is this section in this document?
Nits/editorial comments:
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
