Subject: Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-6man-ra-pref64-08: (with COMMENT)

From: Barry Leiba via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 20:50:48 -0800

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-6man-ra-pref64-08: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-ra-pref64/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I just have a couple of editorial comments about Section 4:

   If the network operator desires to route different
   parts of the IPv4 address space to different NAT64 devices, this can
   be accomplished by routing more specifics of the NAT64 prefix to
   those devices.

What does “more specifics” mean here?  I don’t understand the sentence.

   For example, if the operator is using the RFC1918
   address space, e.g. 10.0.0.0/8 internally and would like to route
   10.0.0.0/8 through NAT64 device A and the rest of the IPv4 space
   through NAT64 device B, and the operator's NAT64 prefix is
   2001:db8:a:b::/96, then the operator can route
   2001:db8:a:b::a00:0/104 to NAT64 A and 2001:db8:a:b::/96 to NAT64 B.

This sentence is too long and cumbersome, and would benefit from being split
(which would also fix some awkward missing commas).  How’s this?:

NEW
   For example, suppose an operator is using the RFC1918 address
   space 10.0.0.0/8 internally.  That operator might want to route
   10.0.0.0/8 through NAT64 device A, and the rest of the IPv4 space
   through NAT64 device B.  If the operator's NAT64 prefix is
   2001:db8:a:b::/96, then the operator can route
   2001:db8:a:b::a00:0/104 to NAT64 A and 2001:db8:a:b::/96 to NAT64 B.
END

---

From: Jen Linkova <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 17:15:54 +1100

Hi Barry,

> What does “more specifics” mean here?  I don’t understand the sentence.

"more specific" as "more specific route".
Would the following sentence be more readable:

" If the network operator desires to route different parts of the IPv4
address space to different NAT64 devices, this can be accomplished by
routing more specific routes comprising  the NAT64 prefix to those
devices."
?

>    2001:db8:a:b::a00:0/104 to NAT64 A and 2001:db8:a:b::/96 to NAT64 B.

Sounds good, thank you for the suggestion! I'll update the text.

-- 
SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 12:55:03 -0500

Hi, Jen.

> routing more specific routes comprising  the NAT64 prefix to those

Yes... that, I understand.  Thanks!

Barry