status (Thursday soon)

[Alistair Woodman]

<snip>
=> 01 is compatible with 02, the problem is in the other way.
=> I implemented the 01 and setup the demo in the intersection of 01 and 02
(by accident: it was just the simplest, good for a demo but not for the real
world but this is another debate :-).

So your sdnat code implements 01 but is configured to behave as 02 ?
(because 01 is a superset of 02?)

<snip>
=> this won't be in the demo and IMHO it won't work (i.e., deeply broken)

Is the issue more "bad protocol / systems design" or is the issue with
"using ICMP within the Linux system and the ability to re-adjust ports on
the fly" ?
I.e. are your objections design or coding specific ?


-----Original Message-----
From: fdupont at isc.org [mailto:fdupont at isc.org] 
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 8:55 AM
To: Alistair Woodman
Cc: 'Francis Dupont'; sdcpe-devel at lists.isc.org
Subject: Re: status (Thursday soon) 

> So I just chatted with Alain.
> 
> His top priorities for the demo are:
> 
> 	1) draft-penno-softwire-sdnat-02

=> 01 is compatible with 02, the problem is in the other way.

> 	2) ICMP message with Min, Max port range reset

=> this won't be in the demo and IMHO it won't work (i.e., deeply broken)

> Preferably running on both HW and VirtualBox VMs (he says VirtualBox 
> supports IPv6 just fine)

=> we don't have the hardware to run it and VirtualBox doesn't provide what
we need for this demo.

> Francis, in one of your previous emails you said
> 
> 	=> yes (BTW the setup is more 02 but the code support 01)
> 
> Does this mean "you implemented 02 which is backwardly compatible with 
> 01", or something else..

=> I implemented the 01 and setup the demo in the intersection of 01 and 02
(by accident: it was just the simplest, good for a demo but not for the real
world but this is another debate :-).

Regards

Francis Dupont <fdupont at isc.org>