Subject: [BEHAVE] Comments on the xlate draft

From: Zhen Cao <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 23:01:52 +0800

Hi All,

Some comments on the draft before the interim meeting.

1. section1.3, when discussing the stateful and stateless mode, a
reference to the framework draft is important because there is a clear
definition of stateless and stateful translation.

2. section2.3 [page 13], handling of ICMPv4 error message to ICMPv6 on
Code 4: I believe that adjust of the MTU should be the minimum of the
original advertised MTU + 20, the translator's MTU on the IPv6 side
and the translator's MTU on the IPv4 side+20, i.e. min (advertised
MTU+20, MTU_t6, MTU_t4+20). That's what the xlate-stateful draft's
wording.

3. section3.2 [page 20], handling of ICMPv6 error message to ICMPv4 on
Type 2: similar to the above, min (advertised MTU-20, MTU_t4,
MTU_t6-20).

4. section 5, for IPsec ESP tunnel model, "the ipv6 node needs to be
able to generate an inner IPv4 header...", that's not possible IMO.
The IPv6 application has no way to fill in the IPv4 inner address.
Often, the tunnel insider ipv4 address is used for further routing at
the IPsec terminator. Only if the client is using the IPv4 application
could this case happen. So i think ESP tunnel cannot work through the
translator.

Thanks for discussion,
Zhen

---

From: Xing Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 21:53:24 +0800

Hi, Zhen,

Thanks.

> definition of stateless and stateful translation.

Added.

> MTU+20, MTU_t6, MTU_t4+20). That's what the xlate-stateful draft's
Modified.

> Type 2: similar to the above, min (advertised MTU-20, MTU_t4,

Modified.

> could this case happen. So i think ESP tunnel cannot work through the
Yes, this is the meaning this document reads, in a softer wording.

Thanks for the comments.

xing

> Thanks for discussion,
> Zhen
> _______________________________________________
> Behave mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
>
>
>

---

From: Zhen Cao <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 00:06:19 +0800

Hi Xing,

I would like to add one more comment as below:

"translator device" that appears in section 2.5 and 3.4 would be more
appropriate if changed to "translator function".

Expert these two places, the document mainly treat the translator as a
function. So it is desirable to keep the consistence.

Thanks for the efforts in delivering this well shaped document.

Happy new year - in advanced:)

Best regards,
Zhen