Subject: draft-thakur-v6ops-3gpp-cases-00.txt comments

From: Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 02:59:03 +0900

i'm not sure if the way transition mechanisms are presented in 2.3
	is the best way to capture multiple translation techniques.
	it goes into too much detail in some place (like DNS-ALG behavior),
	it does not go into details in some places.

2.3 (2)

>   it itself creates . This "A" response consists of an IP address of
>   the router itself and a port number that this router will use to 
>   identify 'B'(similar to NATting). These two responses are eventually

	first, we cannot return port number in A DNS RR.   (*)
	second, this subsection seems to me a proposal for new transition
	mechanism.  if you are just making a recap of some other mechanism,
	which mechanism is it? (**)

2.3 (3)

	ditto for (**).

2.3 (4)
	
	it basically documents behavior of NAT-PT (or some other translation
	methodology) in the presense of mobile-ip6, right?  if so, just
	say so.

2.3 (5)

	ditto for (*) and (**).

itojun

---

From: Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 03:06:12 +0900

>	it does not go into details in some places.

	and i'm a bit confused about how this document relates to
	draft-ietf-v6ops-3gpp-cases-00.txt...

itojun

---

From: "Thakur, Anand" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 10:37:48 +0530

hi,
first of all thanks for your comments.
actually what i have proposed is something very similar to NAT-PT but is not
exactly "translation", but a new tunneling mechanism. the reason for using
the tunneling mechanism is explained in 2.2. as you may have noticed, i have
mentioned that header details (destination address and port number) will be
collected using normal NAT-PT + DNS_ALG  mechanism (as mentioned in rfc
2766)  but this information will not be used to translate the IPV6/IPV4
header but to encapsulate it within another IPV6/IPV4 header.

as far as 2.3 (4) is concerned. the main objective of this sub-section is to
raise a few questions like how a mobile ipv6 node can avoid sending binding
updates to a  ipv4 (which may or may not be mobility enabled) node and a few
other questions as well, which i hope to answer myself in my forthcoming 
(-01) draft.

thanks
anand

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino [SMTP:[email-masked]]
> Sent:	Sunday, November 17, 2002 11:29 PM
> To:	[email-masked]
> Subject:	draft-thakur-v6ops-3gpp-cases-00.txt comments
>