[sunset4] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-chen-sunset4-cgn-port-allocation-02.txt

Discussion:

GangChen

2013-07-15 03:06:02 UTC

wg,

I submitted a new version of draft-chen-sunset4-cgn-port-allocation
The updates incorporated The comments on the previous meeting.
Several testing results are described help to evaluate/verify/complete
the statements.

Your further reviews/comments are appreciated.

BRs

Gang

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: internet-***@ietf.org
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2013 09:13:33 -0700
Subject: I-D Action: draft-chen-sunset4-cgn-port-allocation-02.txt
To: i-d-***@ietf.org

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

Title : Analysis of NAT64 Port Allocation Method
Author(s) : Gang Chen
Filename : draft-chen-sunset4-cgn-port-allocation-02.txt
Pages : 11
Date : 2013-07-14

Abstract:
The document enumerates methods of port assignment in CGN contexts,
more focusing on a NAT64 environment. The analysis categorizes the
different methods with several key features. The uses of existing
protocols are further described corresponding to those features.
This memo also states the port-usage experiences, relevant findings,
evaluations and workarounds. It's expected the document could
provide an informative base line to help operators choosing a proper
method.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-sunset4-cgn-port-allocation

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chen-sunset4-cgn-port-allocation-02

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-chen-sunset4-cgn-port-allocation-02

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

_______________________________________________
I-D-Announce mailing list
I-D-***@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

George, Wes

2013-07-23 15:33:36 UTC

Permalink

A couple of quick comments on Section 2:

" With the merits of simplicity and efficiency, NAT64 will be likely
deployed."
--I think you're asserting that NAT64 is simple and efficient, but this begs the question, "in comparison to what, and using what criteria?" I would either remove this phrase (it's mainly just an introductory transition), or provide supporting information to better advocate for NAT64.

" There was a testing on the comparison of port consumption on NAT64
and NAT44."
--Citation, please?

Thanks,

Wes, as an individual.

-----Original Message-----
Behalf Of GangChen
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 11:06 PM
Subject: [sunset4] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-chen-sunset4-cgn-port-
allocation-02.txt
wg,
I submitted a new version of draft-chen-sunset4-cgn-port-allocation
The updates incorporated The comments on the previous meeting.
Several testing results are described help to evaluate/verify/complete
the statements.
Your further reviews/comments are appreciated.
BRs
Gang
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2013 09:13:33 -0700
Subject: I-D Action: draft-chen-sunset4-cgn-port-allocation-02.txt
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
Title : Analysis of NAT64 Port Allocation Method
Author(s) : Gang Chen
Filename : draft-chen-sunset4-cgn-port-allocation-02.txt
Pages : 11
Date : 2013-07-14
The document enumerates methods of port assignment in CGN contexts,
more focusing on a NAT64 environment. The analysis categorizes the
different methods with several key features. The uses of existing
protocols are further described corresponding to those features.
This memo also states the port-usage experiences, relevant findings,
evaluations and workarounds. It's expected the document could
provide an informative base line to help operators choosing a proper
method.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-sunset4-cgn-port-allocation
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chen-sunset4-cgn-port-allocation-02
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-chen-sunset4-cgn-port-allocation-
02
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
_______________________________________________
I-D-Announce mailing list
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
_______________________________________________
sunset4 mailing list
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4

This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.

GangChen

2013-07-24 11:08:53 UTC

Permalink

Hi Wes,

Thanks for your comments.

Post by George, Wes
" With the merits of simplicity and efficiency, NAT64 will be likely
deployed."
--I think you're asserting that NAT64 is simple and efficient, but this begs
the question, "in comparison to what, and using what criteria?" I would
either remove this phrase (it's mainly just an introductory transition), or
provide supporting information to better advocate for NAT64.

I'd prefer to remove this phrase. This may lead to another
discussions, which may be worth to write another 20-pages draft.

Post by George, Wes
" There was a testing on the comparison of port consumption on NAT64
and NAT44."
--Citation, please?

The testing was made in our IPv6 trials. I would change the sentence
as "we have a testing on the comparison of port consumption on NAT64
and NAT44"

Best Regards

Gang

Post by George, Wes
Thanks,
Wes, as an individual.

This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable
proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to
copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for
the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not
the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the
contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be
unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the
sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this
E-mail and any printout.