2012/4/13 Rémi Després <despres.r...@laposte.net> > > on the other hand, repeating what 4rd-u draft has stated in another draft > is trivial. > > > in details, the following comments (regarding section 4) will be reviewed > but the author won't adopt some of them, especially when it contains > metaphysics beyond the context. > > > Why you consider points below to be metaphysics is obscure to me. > They are believed to be operational and/or technical. > > Your listing your own view of 4rd-u motivations, while refusing mine, > remains your responsibility. > >
i said "won't adopt some of them" but all will be reviewed and referenced. the text, sure, as signed by me, is my responsibility. - maoke > > > > RD > > > > thanks and regards, > maoke > > >> >> >> >> 4.1. (M2) Rather than "simplification of L4 protocol treatment" the >> motivation is "Full IPv4 transparency, with never modified payloads and >> IPv4 fragmentation semantics" >> >> 4.1. (M4) a motivation to be added: "No constraint on subnet-ID >> assignments in customer sites" >> >> 4.2. (O1) "4rd-U argues that IPv4 end-to-end transparency should be as >> ensured as in MAP-E" instead of "4rd-U argues it should be supported no >> matter how minor it is observed in practice". >> >> 4.2. (O1) "4rd-u leaves it to ISPs to decide which kind of tunnel they >> prefer, concerning DiffServ architecture, provided users cannot make the >> difference" instead of "4rd-U argues ToS should be kept unchanged when the >> packet traverses the IPv6 domain, except the ECN bits". >> >> 4.2. (O5) "it also argues that checksum transparency ensures IPv6 packet >> validity of IPv4 tunneled packets, for all present and future protocols >> that have ports as the same place as TCP and the same checksum algorithm, >> without being concerned with where these protocols have their checksum >> fields" instead of "it also argues checksum validity should be ensured >> through address in order to simplify L4 processing" >> >> 4.2. (O6)- to be added >> "UDP null checksums: [RFC6145] can be configured either to drop all IPv4 >> packets having null checksums, or drop only those that are fragmented. >> 4rd-u argues that this lack of IPv4 transparency should be avoided." >> >> 4.2. (O7)- to be added >> "Free assignment of subnet IDs: subnet IDs that follow customer-site >> prefixes in native IPv6 addresses are so far freely chosen for each >> customer site. 4rd-u argues that this freedom should not be lost, despite >> the need to distinguish IPv4-originated packets from native IPv6 packets at >> customer-site entrances. >> >> 4.2. after (T6) CNP and V octet, because they are related to (M4), (O6), >> and (07), should IMHO be considered in scope (if a new version is issued). >> >> >
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
