Hi Washam: Thanks for the review. Please see inline.
On 5/6/10 2:50 AM, "WashamFan" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > I have a quick review on this draft, and want to make sure > I am clear about the technical things in the first place. > > 1. I am confused why tunnel identifier is lacked in the > example translation table showcased in figure 2, as my > understanding, CID and tunnel ID should be combined > to be used to lookup against the translation table. Am > I missing something? > Yes, the CID is unique to the gateway/tunnel. Yes, the first bullet in Section 4.0 does state this. This needs to be added to the illustration as well. Agree. > 2. To my understanding, CIDs differentiate different > AD for a gateway and tunnel IDs differentiate different > gateways for a AFTR, so combination of CID and tunnel > ID can be used to idenfity an AD for AFTR. Shouldn't > CID-1/2 be TID-1/2 in the figure 1? > CID is unique to the gateway. It can unambiguously identify the end point based on the CID alone. But, we will review the illustrations to be correct. Regards Sri > Thanks, > washam > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
