Re: draft-satapati-v6ops-natpt-applicability-00

[Suresh Satapati <satapati@cisco.com>]

Suresh,

My responses inline, only to comments on the draft.

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Below are my initial comments on the draft.
>
> 1. I believe, the RFC shoudl be updated and advanced to be a draft standard.
> teh updated RFC should include a) precise definition of NAT-PT, b) the

a) needs discussion and consensus of WG. I agree with the intention.

> applicability  scenarios, c) Recent NAT and IPsec documents (NAT-MIB,
> MIDCOM-MIB, NAT-Traversal etc.) that augment NAT-PT
> d)deployment/inter-oprability experience from vendors. In other words, I
> believe, tis document itself should be a section of the DS update of the RFC
> 2766.
>

Same as above.

> 2. Section 3.1 - You should refer Midcom work here. ALGs can be moved out of
> the NAT-PT with the support of Midcom protocol.

I agree in principle. But I felt this is beyond the scope of this
document.

>
> 3. Section 3.2 - Scalability - There are proposals that do address the
> scalability issue (refer Park's draft kere).
>

Out of scope. We are not solving problems in this document.

> 4. section 4.2.1 - proxying will require Client applications to change in
> several cases. Several applications do not have proxy servers. Most Proxy
> servers are for TCP based apps only. All in all, this seened like hand-waving
> to me, without a detailed coverage of limitaton of requiring/using proxies.
>

Agreed. We could use a little more wording here.

> 5. Summary - The sentence "In no case should NAT-PT be viewed as a generic
>    solution for IPv6/IPv4 transition in an IPv6-only network." seemed totally
> out of place and a non-sequitor to the rest of the document.
>

This comes from the general agreement within the v6ops WG that dual-stack
deployment is the way to go as long as you want to talk v4.

>
> --- Suresh K Satapati <satapati@cisco.com> wrote:
> > Pekka,
> >
> > Lets not mislead the WG here.
> >
> > From the thread:
> > http://ops.ietf.org/lists/v6ops/v6ops.2003/msg01271.html
> >
> > I disagree with:
> >
> >  2 b) only a more limited set of IPv6-only networks
> >     in the applicability statement.  These scenarios, may be
> >     counterproductive in the face of dual-stack deployment.
> >
> >  3. The recommendation of the specific scenarios.  In the body of the
> >     text, some applicability was identified in two kinds of networks: the
> >     legacy IPv4 equipment and 3GPP.  There was no full consensus that
> >     going down that deployment path (the point above) would
> >     necessarily make sense.
> >
> > As I see it, there was infact a consensus among the DT on the scenarios.
> > The above are more of your opinions on the draft. Pls do not represent the
> > DT on the above.
> >
> > I did not see a major disagreement on the applicable scenarios, except
> > from you (as in 2b and 3) . The slight opposition was on the IMS media
> > translation in 3GPP scenario. Others can speak for themselves on this.
> >
> > --
> > Suresh
> >
> > On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, Pekka Savola wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > > > I think this is very useful draft and it's in good shape.
> > > > I'd like to see the section on 3GPP2 completed, but otherwise
> > > > the sooner we get this analysis published, the better.
> > >
> > > Thanks Brian.  Just in case, did you have a look at the "NAT-PT
> > > applicability considerations" thread, at:
> > >
> > > http://ops.ietf.org/lists/v6ops/v6ops.2003/msg01271.html
> > >
> > > .. which tried to provoke thoughts on several subjects relating to the
> > > document which might be unanimous.
> > >
> > > Do you have any further comments to make based on these?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
> > > Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
> > > Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> =====
>
>
>