Subject: [Int-area] [intarea]Comments on draft-cui-intarea-unified-v6-framework-00

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 17:36:33 +0800

Hi Yong, Yuchi, all

  This is a interesting topic. I reviewed this draft and  have some
comments and questions.

  1) In section 5

   "When receiving an incoming packet that doesn't have a match in the
   flow table (usually the intial packet of a new flow), CPE Switch and
   BR Switch MUST forward the packet to Controller.  Controller MUST
   determine how to proceed the flow (e.g. whether to apply NAT/ NAT64
   translation and/ or softwire encapsluaton/ decapuslutaion), and
   interpret the process into a set of forwarding rule configurations.
   Controller then passes these configurations to CPE Swtich and BR
   Switch.  CPE Switch and BR Switch then configure their flow table
   according to these configurations,"

  Why not let controller create flow table. Since packet is received by
controller, why not let it do more?
  BTW, does "usually the intial packet of a new flow" mean an intial 
packet
of each session? If so, it might lead to message congestion between switch 
&
controller.

  2) What is the concrete consideration between CPE/BR & controller? 
such as netconfig, i2rs.

  3) Logging is important in NAT, what is the consideration about it?
Maybe a switch is not suitable for logging itself.

Thanks,
Wei