[BEHAVE] Comments on draft-cao-behave-hbt-req-00
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[BEHAVE] Comments on draft-cao-behave-hbt-req-00
1) Section 2.1 ("R1: Support for Legacy IPv4 applications"):
What types of legacy IPv4 applications? Only ones that use DNS?
Or ones that use IPv4 literals? Or ones that use SIP?
Multicast? Etc.
2) Section 2.3 ("R3: Minimize overhead on wireless links"):
> Thus if a translation based solution is
> possible, it is preferred over a tunneling based solution that will
> end up adding an additional IP header over the air.
This would motivate work on compression for tunnels as a non-
translation-based solution.
3) Section 3 ("Security Considerations"):
> This document describes the motivation and requirements for a host
> based translation solution and does not create any new security
> considerations.
What about a requirement that it not be less secure than native
IPv4 would be?
-Dave
Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.