Re: draft-palet-v6ops-proto41-nat-01.txt

["Rute C. Sofia" <rsofia@seas.upenn.edu>]

Hi Jordi,

comments on the draft:

- abstract, 3rd paragraph "this behavior provides a big
opportunity...when is not possible to offer native IPv6 or 6to4"
*Suggestion: change this paragraph to something such as" this is a
fallback option only to be used either when there
is
no possibility of offering native IPv6, or 6to4 (reference here)"

- Introduction
* the first 2 paragraphs are a copy of the abstract. My suggestion would
be to take them out, and re-write this section...however, I believe that
the abstract should contemplate some info presented such as: not only that
this is a temporary fallback solution (as stated), but also, that this is
only aplicable to the subset of NATs that allow protocol 41.

- section 3., NAT types.
*This section is a bit confusing; I believe that you are following the
nomenclature
presented in rfc 2766; Basic is the "Traditional" type, right? Basic is
confusing, given that NAPT-PT (I believe that's what you mean in section
3.2) is a form of the traditional NAT-PT;
* Also, in 3.2. , you say "...This can also be combined with basic NAT".
So I'm lost here.
* Isn't 3.4 a subset of 3.3?

- Section 4., Applicability
*1st paragraph states a problem with NAT, not IPv6+NAT. Now, the paragraph
seems to imply that this is due to IPv6 and NAT.
* 5th paragraph, "This configuration can be a default one...". Even though
you speak of private addresses, this option is a bit limiting, isn't it?

*6th,7th paragraph are out of context in this section; should be moved to
the intro.

- Section 5.
* you say that most vendors support proto-41. How many were checked? which
percentage support ip proto-41 and how many provided bidirectionality?
This would be interesting data to be include.
* 3rd paragraph. It is a fact that 6to4 and proto-41 can coexist in the
same box. But the question is? Why would they, when you claim that the
current solution is simply a "temporary fallback" one, when there is
either no 6to4 or native support? This paragraph contradicts the abstract,
the intro and the previous one.

Rute







On Sun, 3 Aug 2003, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> The revision of the document indicated in the subject, has been published a few days ago, as indicated below.
>
> I will be happy to get new comments from the WG.
>
> Regards,
> Jordi
>
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
>
>
> 	Title		: Forwarding Protocol 41 in NAT Boxes
> 	Author(s)	: J. Palet et al.
> 	Filename	: draft-palet-v6ops-proto41-nat-01.txt
> 	Pages		: 12
> 	Date		: 2003-7-31
>
> Some NAT boxes/routers allow the establishment of IPv6 tunnels from
> systems in the private LAN (using private IPv4 addresses) to routers
> or tunnel servers in the public Internet.
> As far as we know this is not a common way of use IPv6 tunnels; the
> usual way is to finish the tunnel directly in a device with an IPv4
> public address.
> This behavior provides a big opportunity to rapidly deploy a huge
> number of IPv6 nodes and networks, without the need of new transition
> mechanism. This option is very important to facilitate the IPv6
> deployment.
> This document describes this behavior and provides hints that should
> be applied in the NAT boxes and tunnel brokers to facilitate it.
>
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-palet-v6ops-proto41-nat-01.txt
>
>
> *****************************
> Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit
> Presentations and videos on-line at:
> http://www.ipv6-es.com
>
>
>