Re: [Softwires] I-D Action:draft-lee-softwire-6rd-udp-00.txt

["Lee, Yiu" <Yiu_Lee at Cable.Comcast.com>]

Title: Re: [Softwires] I-D Action:draft-lee-softwire-6rd-udp-00.txt

Hi Brian.

I would like to use DHCP to discover the SP-BR. Problem is that the NAT is the DHCP server for the hosts which won’t understand the new DHCP option. Another way to work around this is to define a new light-weight discovery protocol. Do you have any better idea to share?

For server model, we can define a port-forwarding rule in the NAT. For host model, things are more tricky. Unfortunately, hosts are behind a NAT and will suffer from all the NAT limitations.

Thanks,
Yiu

On 11/5/09 9:18 PM, "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:

> I like this idea in principle, but I am quite concerned by
> two issues that seem to make it unattractive in practice:
>
> 1. No defined method for discovering the Subscriber IPv4 Address
> (section 3.3) and no universal method of discovering the SP-BR
> prefix (requires RADIUS or DIAMETER, section 5.2, but some ISPs
> don't use either of them).
>
> 2. Does not support IPv6 server ports (section 7.1, no
> externally initiated sessions). That's just as bad as traditional
> NAT.
>
> One detail in section 4.1:
>
> >    o  this specification does not introduce new requirement to the IPv4
> >       UDP Length and Checksum.
>
> Does that mean that the UDP checksum is optional?
>
>     Brian
>
> _______________________________________________
> Softwires mailing list
> Softwires at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature