Subject: [BEHAVE] I-D Action: draft-ietf-behave-64-analysis-04.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 06:37:25 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Behavior Engineering for Hindrance Avoidance Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Analysis of Stateful 64 Translation
	Author(s)       : Reinaldo Penno
                          Tarun Saxena
                          Mohamed Boucadair
                          Senthil Sivakumar
	Filename        : draft-ietf-behave-64-analysis-04.txt
	Pages           : 15
	Date            : 2011-08-09

   Due to specific problems, NAT-PT was deprecated by the IETF as a
   mechanism to perform IPv6-IPv4 translation.  Since then, new efforts
   have been undertaken within IETF to standardize alternative
   mechanisms to perform IPv6-IPv4 translation.  This document evaluates
   how the new stateful translation mechanisms avoid the problems that
   caused the IETF to deprecate NAT-PT.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-behave-64-analysis-04.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-behave-64-analysis-04.txt

---

From: Paco Cortes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 12:50:27 +0200

Hi,

In Table 1, the "proxy correspondent node for MIPv6" issue should be
classified as NOT NAT-PT specific, shouldn't it?
Is it a typo that you wrote "yes" in the corresponding cell, or is
there a dependency that I am missing?

   +---------------+----------+---------+----------+---------+---------+
   |     Proxy     |    Yes   |   Yes   |    No    |    No   |    No   |
   | correspondent |          |         |          |         |         |
   |    node for   |          |         |          |         |         |
   |     MIPv6     |          |         |          |         |         |
   +---------------+----------+---------+----------+---------+---------+

br,
  Paco

2011/8/9  <[email-masked]>:
> _______________________________________________
> Behave mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
>

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 16:54:47 +0200

Dear Paco,

Thank you for catching this. This is indeed a typo in the table. FWIW, in page 4 we mentioned:

"   3.  Need for the NAT64-capable device to act as proxy for
       correspondent node when IPv6 node is mobile, with consequent
       restrictions on mobility (Section 2.7 of [RFC4966]).

          Analysis: This is not specific to NAT64..."

Is there any harm if we correct this typo in the next iteration of the draft (e.g., after the IETF LC)?

Thanks.
Cheers,
Med

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Paco Cortes [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Envoyé : mercredi 10 août 2011 12:50
À : [email-masked]; [email-masked]; BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP; [email-masked]
Cc : [email-masked]
Objet : Re: [BEHAVE] I-D Action: draft-ietf-behave-64-analysis-04.txt

Hi,

br,
  Paco

---

From: Paco Cortes <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 17:10:33 +0200

No harm :-)