Subject: [BEHAVE] Comments on draft-cao-behave-hbt-req-00

From: Dave Thaler <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 11:52:28 +0000

1) Section 2.1 ("R1: Support for Legacy IPv4 applications"):

What types of legacy IPv4 applications?   Only ones that use DNS?  
Or ones that use IPv4 literals?  Or ones that use SIP? 
Multicast? Etc.

2) Section 2.3 ("R3: Minimize overhead on wireless links"):
> Thus if a translation based solution is
> possible, it is preferred over a tunneling based solution that will
> end up adding an additional IP header over the air.

This would motivate work on compression for tunnels as a non-
translation-based solution.

3) Section 3 ("Security Considerations"):
> This document describes the motivation and requirements for a host
> based translation solution and does not create any new security
> considerations.

What about a requirement that it not be less secure than native 
IPv4 would be?

-Dave