Document: draft-ietf-v6ops-prefer8781 Title: Recommendations for Discovering IPv6 Prefix Used for IPv6 Address Synthesis Reviewer: Chongfeng Xie Review result: Has Nits Hi folks, I have reviewed this draft, and have the following comments, 1) Regarding NAT64 definition in Section 2，in the context of this draft, NAT64 should be Stateful NAT64 (RFC6146), so I suggest that this definition is revised to be consistent with the definition in RFC8781. 2) Section 4.1 is about the recommendation to operators, considering that operators do not have control to the end-point industry, I suggest section 4.1.2 is moved from section 4.1 and considered as a seperate secion, for example, section 4.2. 3) While PREF64 approach defined in RFC8781 offers advantages, its RA-based discovery mechanism requires configuration on all user-side interfaces of edge devices. In production networks with numerous edge devices, this approach imposes significantly higher configuration and management overhead compared to DNS-based RFC 7050 solutions. By contrast, DNS64 deployed on a central DNS server can serve a broad user base, reducing operational complexity. To ensure operators have a complete understanding, it is also recommended to mention this in an appropriate manner. 4) Nit: "3. Existing Issues with RFC 7050"--->"3. Existing Issues with RFC7050" Best regards Chongfeng -- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
