Hi Jörg,
Thanks for the review. Regarding your quick question:
- Yes your comment is right. In the presence of network (and port) address translation
devices/functions it would be up to the controller plane to determine the appropriate
addresses. Recognizing DetNet flows at the IP level is based on port/address fields.
Controller plane have to ensure that nodes after the translation are configured with
the translate IP header fields, when recognition of DetNet flows is required.
It can be mentioned with a note (to be added at the end of section "5. Management
and Control Information Summary):
--- NEW TEXT
Note: In the presence of network (and port) address translation
devices/functions it would be up to the controller plane to
determine the appropriate information to ensure proper
mapping at the sender/receiver.
--- END
Thanks & Cheers
Bala'zs
-----Original Message-----
From: Joerg Ott via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2020 5:34 PM
To: tsv-art@xxxxxxxx
Cc: last-call@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-udp-ip.all@xxxxxxxx; detnet@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-udp-ip-06
Reviewer: Joerg Ott
Review result: Ready
This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF discussion list for information.
When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC tsv-art@xxxxxxxx if you reply to or forward this review.
The document defines the transmission and reception behaviour as well as the configuration information for encapsulating DetNet MPLS packets over UDP.
The draft provides an explicit applicability statement concerning carrying non-congestion controlled traffic.
With the latter in mind, the document seems to be complete.
(Fragmentation and reassembly seem to be already covered with MPLS-over-UDP in RFC7510 and RFC4023)
One quick question to the authors:
Section 5 provides the necessary information to be configured for flow mapping and makes reference to IP source and destination addresses. Is the presence of network (and port) address translation devices/functions covered elsewhere in the many specs to ensure proper transmission at a sender and proper reverse mapping at a receiver? It would be up to the control plane to determine the appropriate addresses. Does this need explicit mentioning?
Best,
Jörg
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
