Subject: draft-palet-v6ops-proto41-nat-01.txt

From: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2003 20:41:36 +0200

Hi all,

The revision of the document indicated in the subject, has been published a few days ago, as indicated below.

I will be happy to get new comments from the WG.

Regards,
Jordi

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.

	Title		: Forwarding Protocol 41 in NAT Boxes
	Author(s)	: J. Palet et al.
	Filename	: draft-palet-v6ops-proto41-nat-01.txt
	Pages		: 12
	Date		: 2003-7-31
	
Some NAT boxes/routers allow the establishment of IPv6 tunnels from 
systems in the private LAN (using private IPv4 addresses) to routers 
or tunnel servers in the public Internet. 
As far as we know this is not a common way of use IPv6 tunnels; the 
usual way is to finish the tunnel directly in a device with an IPv4 
public address. 
This behavior provides a big opportunity to rapidly deploy a huge 
number of IPv6 nodes and networks, without the need of new transition 
mechanism. This option is very important to facilitate the IPv6 
deployment. 
This document describes this behavior and provides hints that should 
be applied in the NAT boxes and tunnel brokers to facilitate it.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-palet-v6ops-proto41-nat-01.txt

*****************************
Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit
Presentations and videos on-line at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com

---

From: "Rute C. Sofia" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 13:37:36 -0400 (EDT)

Hi Jordi,

comments on the draft:

- abstract, 3rd paragraph "this behavior provides a big
opportunity...when is not possible to offer native IPv6 or 6to4"
*Suggestion: change this paragraph to something such as" this is a
fallback option only to be used either when there
is
no possibility of offering native IPv6, or 6to4 (reference here)"

- Introduction
* the first 2 paragraphs are a copy of the abstract. My suggestion would
be to take them out, and re-write this section...however, I believe that
the abstract should contemplate some info presented such as: not only that
this is a temporary fallback solution (as stated), but also, that this is
only aplicable to the subset of NATs that allow protocol 41.

- section 3., NAT types.
*This section is a bit confusing; I believe that you are following the
nomenclature
presented in rfc 2766; Basic is the "Traditional" type, right? Basic is
confusing, given that NAPT-PT (I believe that's what you mean in section
3.2) is a form of the traditional NAT-PT;
* Also, in 3.2. , you say "...This can also be combined with basic NAT".
So I'm lost here.
* Isn't 3.4 a subset of 3.3?

- Section 4., Applicability
*1st paragraph states a problem with NAT, not IPv6+NAT. Now, the paragraph
seems to imply that this is due to IPv6 and NAT.
* 5th paragraph, "This configuration can be a default one...". Even though
you speak of private addresses, this option is a bit limiting, isn't it?

*6th,7th paragraph are out of context in this section; should be moved to
the intro.

- Section 5.
* you say that most vendors support proto-41. How many were checked? which
percentage support ip proto-41 and how many provided bidirectionality?
This would be interesting data to be include.
* 3rd paragraph. It is a fact that 6to4 and proto-41 can coexist in the
same box. But the question is? Why would they, when you claim that the
current solution is simply a "temporary fallback" one, when there is
either no 6to4 or native support? This paragraph contradicts the abstract,
the intro and the previous one.

Rute