[BEHAVE] Comment on draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-framework-03

[Reinaldo Penno <rpenno at juniper.net>]

This document is very nice but section 2 left me with some questions.

For example, I was puzzled as to why "Scenario 7: the IPv6 Internet to the
IPv4 Internet" does not work and " Scenario 3: the IPv6 Internet to an IPv4
network" does given the justification:

"   Due to the huge difference in size between the address spaces of the
   IPv4 Internet and the IPv6 Internet, there is no viable translation
   technique to handle unlimited IPv6 address translation."

I would assume this applies to both, i.e., the IPv6 address space is much
larger than IPv4 address space.

Then after some digging I found that in a previous version of this document
" http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-baker-behave-v4v6-framework-02#page-14";
there is some text that seems to shed some light on the issue...

" The key issue for this case is to use a
   pool of public IPv4 addresses or [RFC1918] address to represent IPv6
   in IPv4.  Since the number of concurrent sessions for a IPv4 server
   or a pool of server is limited, it is possible to do translation in
   this case."

I'm still not sure as exactly how the 'number of concurrent connections' is
limited in one case and not another? You can still have all of the v6
Internet access a single server in both cases, can't you?

Anyway, although the document looks good I feel that some good
discussions/text present in earlier version were dropped at some point.

Can someone elaborate as to the assumption (explicit or implicit) as to when
similar scenarios work and stop working? I see similar situations between
other scenarios.

Thanks,

Reinaldo