Re: [dhcwg] draft-bpw-pcp-dhcp-00.txt

Dear Ralph,

You are right the concatenation behaviour should be specified for the host so that this mechanism to work. This can be simplified if only a hostname is conveyed in the option instead of the FQDN (e.g., "cgn" or "aftr") and a domain search name (e.g., "city1.example.com"). The concatenation would lead to "cgn.city1.example.com". If in the same DHCP offer, a name for SBC/P-CSCF (e.g., "sbc") is provided, the host would build its specific FQDN for the SBC/P-CSCF (i.e., "sbc.city1.example.com"). This concatenation operation can be avoided if the specific FQDN is included in the AFTR name option.

Cheers,
Med

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Ralph Droms [mailto:rdroms.ietf@gmail.com] 
Envoyé : mardi 12 octobre 2010 16:19
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed NCPI/NAD/TIP
Cc : Lemon Ted; dhcwg@ietf.org Group; Reinaldo Penno
Objet : Re: [dhcwg] draft-bpw-pcp-dhcp-00.txt

I don't understand how the mechanism in msg01649.html can work.  As I read the description, the DHCP server sends both "a generic FQDN of the AFTR [and] a suffix in the dns search list option."  The host combines those two strings into an FQDN for the service it is trying to discover.  Without some explicit rules about what part of the AFTR FQDN is replaced by which suffix in the DNS search list option, what is the expected behavior of the host?

- Ralph

On Oct 12, 2010, at 1:57 AM 10/12/10, <mohamed.boucadair@orange-ftgroup.com> <mohamed.boucadair@orange-ftgroup.com> wrote:

> Dear Ted,
> 
> One of the main use cases of the PCP is to control Carrier Grade NAT such as DS-Lite CGN or NAT64. It is likely that the PCP Server be co-located with the CGN function. A similar use case is discussed in http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/softwires/current/msg01649.html: load-balancing.
> 
> Cheers,
> Med 
> 
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Ted Lemon [mailto:Ted.Lemon@nominum.com] 
> Envoyé : lundi 11 octobre 2010 19:01
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed NCPI/NAD/TIP
> Cc : Reinaldo Penno; Dan Wing; dhcwg@ietf.org Group
> Objet : Re: draft-bpw-pcp-dhcp-00.txt 
> 
> On Oct 11, 2010, at 9:11 AM, <mohamed.boucadair@orange-ftgroup.com> <mohamed.boucadair@orange-ftgroup.com> wrote:
> 
>> As for the options, what about defining a single option with sub-code field which indicates whether the option conveys an IP address or a FQDN? Is this acceptable?
> 
> No.   Why do you want this?
> 
> 
> *********************************
> This message and any attachments (the "message") are confidential and intended solely for the addressees. 
> Any unauthorised use or dissemination is prohibited.
> Messages are susceptible to alteration. 
> France Telecom Group shall not be liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified.
> If you are not the intended addressee of this message, please cancel it immediately and inform the sender.
> ********************************
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

*********************************
This message and any attachments (the "message") are confidential and intended solely for the addressees. 
Any unauthorised use or dissemination is prohibited.
Messages are susceptible to alteration. 
France Telecom Group shall not be liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified.
If you are not the intended addressee of this message, please cancel it immediately and inform the sender.
********************************