Subject: [Softwires] Review of draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-03.txt

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 02:27:29 -0400

Hi authors,
  I went over this draft to check whether it is ready to advance from
the WG. The latest revision of the draft is highly improved and has
addressed most of the concerns I had on clarity. I do have a few minor
concerns though, and I would like to see them addressed before sending
the draft along the publication process.

* Introduction

The draft needs a bit more motivation on why an ISP with a lot of IPv4
address resources does not simply run dual stack.

* Section 3

4over6 CE: This section seems to be stating that the 4over6 CE does not
provide IPv6 service to the customer network if it is a CPE. Is this
true? If so, this seems to be wrong and needs to be fixed.

* Section 4

It is not clear how this mechanism "integrates easily" with DS-Lite as
claimed. Can you add a bit more text on how this will be accomplished

* Section 5.1

The arrows in the figure are confusing. e.g. what information does the
4over6 CE provide to the DHCPv6 server. If none, why is the arrow
bidirectional? Suggest making the arrows unidirectional to show the flow
of information.

* Section 6

Which DHCPv6 option does the 4over6 CE use to get the BR address. Is it
the AFTR-Name option? This needs to be clarified.

Thanks
Suresh

---

From: Peng Wu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 11:12:09 +0800

Hi Suresh,

Thanks for reviewing the draft and provding valuable comments.
Answers inline.
In general all the issues should be easy to fix.  Please expect a new
version soon.

> address resources does not simply run dual stack.
Sure

> true? If so, this seems to be wrong and needs to be fixed.
You are right, we actually does not restrict that. Will fix this issue
> claimed. Can you add a bit more text on how this will be accomplished
OK.

> bidirectional? Suggest making the arrows unidirectional to show the flow
The original thoughts are showing DHCP is a mutliple-step interaction...
Will make the direction of the first two arrows as right->left.

> the AFTR-Name option? This needs to be clarified.
Yes. We have put a reference to RFC6334 in section 6. Will add the
option name in next version