Hi Tobias, Thanks for your comments!
We will improve the draft based on your comments. The following are some brief response: # Generally - Use RFC5398 ASNs; I doubt that Level3, The University of Delaware, or the MIT should be explicitly mentioned in a draft. - Illustrate the examples with RFC3849 / RFC9637 addresses Yes, it will be more formal. # Role of DNAT My understanding of the draft is, that it describes a method to measure OSAV in "AS2", originating packets from "AS1" and collecting them in "AS3". >From my reading, the proposal is rooted in the assumption of a DNAT being present in "AS2". I would argue that this is not a general given and as such similar to the use of a volunteer. We disocvered millions of DNAT in the Internet, demonstrating that it is promising to use DNAT to measure OSAV deployment. In addition, remote measurement methods can be complemented with client-based methods to cover more networks. Do you think it will be better if some measurement results are put into the draft? I am not sure about it since it is a draft about measurement _method_. # Role of topologyEven assuming that a DNAT device is readily available, inferring source address validation would require that there is _no_ reasonable path for packets from "AS1" to "AS3" via "AS2", i.e., "AS1" must not be in "AS2"'s cone. Yes, the AS relationship should be considered. To address this, we use not only IP1 (which belongs to AS1), but also other addresses adjacent to IP2 (which may not belong to AS1) as the source addresses. We described it in Section 4.3. Please let me know if you have further questions or need additional details.Best regards, wangsh...@mail.zgclab.edu.cn
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list -- grow@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to grow-le...@ietf.org
