Bechet, > I have some comments on this draft. > > Regarding Section 5, I am curious why we need the mapping, i.e. > Section 5 if we are doing MAP-E? i.e. NAT44'ed IPv4 packet is > encapsulated in IPv6 using RFC 2473. RFC2473 defines quite in detail > in Section 5 on Tunnel IPv6 Header almost everything needed.
MAP-E does everything MAP does. support of mesh mode, stateless BRs... without mapping how would that be achieved? > More specific comments: what is the relationship of this draft with > the original MAP-E draft, draft-mdt-softwire-map-encapsulation-00? > That draft described in detail how RFC 2473 would be used which is > missing in draft-ietf-softwire-map-02. OTOH draft-ietf-softwire-map-02 > does not even reference draft-mdt-softwire-map-encapsulation-00, why? draft-ietf-softwire-map has evolved from draft-mdt-softwire-map-encapsulation and is meant to incorporate all the significant parts of it. something may have fallen out in editing, if so please propose text. cheers, Ole
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
