Subject: [v6ops] Comment on siit-dc

From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 16:42:01 +0000

The abstract reads:

   This document describes the use of the Stateless IP/ICMP Translation
   (SIIT) algorithm in an IPv6 Internet Data Centre (IDC).  In this
   deployment model, traffic from legacy IPv4-only clients on the
   Internet is translated to IPv6 when reaches the IDC operator's
   network infrastructure.  From that point on, it is treated just as if
   it was traffic from any other IPv6-capable end user.  This
   facilitates a single-stack IPv6-only network infrastructure, as well
   as efficient utilisation of public IPv4 addresses.

   The primary audience is IDC operators who are deploying IPv6, running
   out of available IPv4 addresses, and/or feel that dual stack causes
   undesirable operational complexity.

I see what you're saying, but can read it as specifying how an RFC 6052 address might be used, when you're specifying the use of siit-eam. May I suggest tweaking the abstract to clarify that?

---

From: Tore Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 08:30:28 +0200

* Fred Baker (fred)

> I see what you're saying, but can read it as specifying how an RFC
> 6052 address might be used, when you're specifying the use of
> siit-eam. May I suggest tweaking the abstract to clarify that?

Point taken. How about:

    This document describes the use of the Stateless IP/ICMP Translation
    (SIIT) algorithm in an IPv6 Internet Data Centre (IDC).  In this
    deployment model, traffic from legacy IPv4-only clients on the
    Internet is translated to IPv6 when reaches the IDC operator's
    network infrastructure.  From that point on, it is treated just as if
    it was traffic from any other IPv6-capable end user. The IPv6
    endpoints may be numbered using arbitrary (non-IPv4-translatable)
    IPv6 addresses. This facilitates a single-stack IPv6-only network
    infrastructure, as well as efficient utilisation of public IPv4
    addresses.

    The primary audience is IDC operators who are deploying IPv6,
    running out of available IPv4 addresses, and/or feel that dual
    stack causes undesirable operational complexity.

...?

Tore

---

From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 06:43:16 +0000

> On Jul 26, 2015, at 8:30 AM, Tore Anderson <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> * Fred Baker (fred)
> 
>> The abstract reads:
>> 

"when it reaches", or "upon reaching"

>    it was traffic from any other IPv6-capable end user. The IPv6

Just a thought: s/is treated just as if it was/is indistinguishable from/

>    stack causes undesirable operational complexity.

Works for me. The first suggestion is better English; the second is very optional but is what I think you're trying to say.

---

From: Tore Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 09:19:51 +0200

* Fred Baker (fred)

> "when it reaches", or "upon reaching"

Ack

> Just a thought: s/is treated just as if it was/is indistinguishable from/

Hmm. You actually can distinguish between the two if you want to,
because the IPv4 address space will be mapped into a specific prefix
(such as 64:ff9b::/96). Being able to make this distinction is necessary
in order to allow the IPv6 application to perform tasks like IPv4
geolocation. On the other hand, this makes me realise that the current
"it is" is probably too absolute as well. So let me try to rewrite that
sentence from scratch:

«From that point on, it may be treated the same as traffic from native
IPv6 end users.»

How does that read to you? Any better suggestions?

Tore

---

From: Sander Steffann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 14:08:50 +0200

Hi,

> How does that read to you? Any better suggestions?

That looks good.
Sander

---

From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 23:38:39 +0000

works for me.

> On Jul 25, 2015, at 11:30 PM, Tore Anderson <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> * Fred Baker (fred)
> 
>> The abstract reads:
>>