Re: [BEHAVE] I-D Action:draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-03.txt

[Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>]

Could we have an explicit list of the differences from SIIT?
Maybe this would fit naturally in section 1.2.

Also in section 1.2:

>    Fragmented IPv4 UDP packets that do not contain a UDP checksum (i.e.
>    the UDP checksum field is zero) are not of significant use over wide-
>    areas in the Internet and will not be translated by the IP/ICMP
>    translator [Miller].

That is a pretty old reference. We have some more recent data,
e.g. Dongjin Lee's data:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/behave/current/msg06856.html

(It doesn't change the conclusion, and the fact that the result is stable
over a number years makes it stronger.)

> 2.1.  Translating IPv4 Headers into IPv6 Headers
> 
>    If the DF flag is not set and the IPv4 packet will result in an IPv6
>    packet larger than 1280 bytes the IPv4 packet MUST be fragmented
>    prior to translating it.  

draft-defeche-ipv6-traffic-in-p2p-networks-00.txt seems to tell us that
this will be a very common case, which has engineering implications.
I don't think there is any choice, however.

    Brian