Re: [BEHAVE] AD review of LSN requirements draft

[Wesley Eddy <[e-mail]>]

On 6/1/2012 8:19 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
> Hi Simon, all,
>  
> 
>> -----Message d'origine-----
>> De : [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] 
>> De la part de Simon Perreault
>> Envoyé : jeudi 31 mai 2012 19:40
>> À : Wesley Eddy
>> Cc : [e-mail]; 
>> [e-mail]
>> Objet : Re: [BEHAVE] AD review of LSN requirements draft
>>
>>
>>> (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).

-- 
Wes Eddy
MTI Systems