Re: [BEHAVE] AD review of LSN requirements draft

[Simon Perreault <[e-mail]>]

On 2012-06-01 08:41, Wesley Eddy wrote:
>>>> (6) I think it would be good to have an advisory reference to
>>>> the issues in:
>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-donley-nat444-impacts-03 and
>>>> whether or not following the recommendations in this document
>>>> helps to avoid such issues.  The RFC 6269 reference already in
>>>> the introduction is okay, but it probably glosses over this
>>>> topic too quickly.
>>>
>>> In addition to Dan's response, the draft-donley does not evaluate
>>> CGNs that have a PCP server, which our draft requires. I think
>>> the inclusion of PCP would affect the results significantly.
>>
>> Med: Agree. FWIW, an example of a detailed report for an
>> application tested in draft-donley-* is available at:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boucadair-pcp-bittorrent-00
>> (various combinations are tested including playing with the
>> configuration of the BT clients to allow multiple connections from
>> the same IP).
>
> I think it would be great to add a sentence in the justification of
> the PCP requirement to specifically say that it's intended to improve
> on prior CGN implementations that did not include PCP and were found
> to have problems with certain applications (with citations).

Makes sense.

We had this:

    Justification:  Allowing subscribers to manipulate the NAT state
       table with PCP greatly increases the likelihood that applications
       will function properly.

I added this:

       A study of PCP-less CGN impacts can be found in
       [I-D.donley-nat444-impacts].  Another study considering the
       effects of PCP on a peer-to-peer file sharing protocol can be
       found in [I-D.boucadair-pcp-bittorrent].

Simon
-- 
DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca