Re: [pcp] WG last call on draft-ietf-pcp-base-13

I actually disagree with this requirement. I would like to see it relaxed
since for various reasons a client might actually wants certain explicit
mappings bound to different public Ips.

The reasons are discussed in:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-penno-pcp-zones-00

On 7/26/11 7:07 AM, "Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Tina TSOU [mailto:Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 9:55 AM
>> To: Dan Wing; pcp@ietf.org
>> Subject: RE: [pcp] WG last call on draft-ietf-pcp-base-13
>> 
>> Dan,
>> Thanks.
>> It is what we agreed on the texts in the mailing list before:
>> "If there is already an active explicit dynamic mapping,
>>   it will be mapped to a certain external IP address.
>>   When the PCP client makes another explicit dynamic mapping,
>>   it SHOULD place the external IP address of the existing
>>   mapping into the Requested External Address of the MAP
>>   request.  By doing this, all of the PCP client's explicit
>>   dynamic mappings will be on the same external address."
> 
> That's saying something different -- that is saying that
> all PCP-created explicit dynamic mappings have to be on
> the same external address.
> 
> I added a second sentence, so it now reads:
> 
>       It is REQUIRED that the PCP-controlled device assign the same
>       external IP address to PCP-created explicit dynamic mappings and
>       to implicit dynamic mappings for a given Internal Host.  It is
> ...............................................................^^^^^
>       also REQUIRED that PCP-created explicit dynamic mappings be
> ......^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>       assigned the same external IP address.
> ......^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> 
>> We should specify the action of the PCP client.
> 
> -d
> 
> 
>> 
>> Best Regards,
>> Tina TSOU
>> http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dan Wing [mailto:dwing@cisco.com]
>> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 5:01 PM
>> To: Tina TSOU; pcp@ietf.org
>> Subject: RE: [pcp] WG last call on draft-ietf-pcp-base-13
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: pcp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>>> Tina Zouting
>>> Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 8:32 PM
>>> To: pcp@ietf.org
>>> Subject: Re: [pcp] WG last call on draft-ietf-pcp-base-13
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> It seems that http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/pcp/trac/ticket/24, "PCP
>>> mappings same public IP address as dynamic mappings" is not reflected
>>> in the latest version.
>>> Sorry for the late feedback.
>> 
>> I am not online at the moment, so I can't read ticket #24.
>> 
>> Section 7 says:
>>    It is REQUIRED that the PCP-controlled device assign the same
>>    external IP address to PCP-created explicit dynamic mappings and to
>>    implicit dynamic mappings for a given Internal Host.
>> 
>> Is that ok?
>> 
>> -d
>> 
>>> Best Regards,
>>> Tina TSOU
>>> http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: pcp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>>> Alain Durand
>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 8:34 PM
>>> To: pcp@ietf.org
>>> Subject: [pcp] WG last call on draft-ietf-pcp-base-13
>>> 
>>> draft-ietf-pcp-base-13 has been published to address the comments
>>> received during wg last call on the -12 revision. We would like to
>>> start a 1-week working group last call on this new revision.
>>> 
>>> The PCP wg chairs, Alain & Dave.
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>> 
>>> On Jul 5, 2011, at 11:19 PM, "Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> draft-ietf-pcp-base-13 was just posted.  Changes are in
>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pcp-base-13#appendix-B.1, and
>>> copied
>>>> below.
>>>> 
>>>> Side-by-side diffs between -12 and -13 are at:
>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pcp-base-13.txt
>>>> 
>>>> This should resolve all comments from -12's WGLC.
>>>> 
>>>> -d
>>>> 
>>>>   o  All addresses are 128 bits.  IPv4 addresses are represented by
>>>>      IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses (::FFFF/96)
>>>> 
>>>>   o  PCP request header now includes PCP client's port (in addition
>>> to
>>>>      the client's IP address, which was in -12).
>>>> 
>>>>   o  new ADDRESS_MISMATCH error.
>>>> 
>>>>   o  removed PROCESSING_ERROR error, which was too similar to
>>>>      MALFORMED_REQUEST.
>>>> 
>>>>   o  Tweaked text describing how PCP client deals with multiple PCP
>>>>      server addresses (Section 6.1)
>>>> 
>>>>   o  clarified that when overloaded, the server can send
>>>>      SERVER_OVERLOADED (and drop requests) or simply drop requests.
>>>> 
>>>>   o  Clarified how PCP client chooses MAP4 or MAP6, depending on
>> the
>>>>      presence of its own IPv6 or IPv4 interfaces (Section 7).
>>>> 
>>>>   o  compliant PCP server MUST support MAPx and PEERx, SHOULD
>> support
>>>>      ability to disable support.
>>>> 
>>>>   o  clarified that MAP-created mappings have no filtering, and
>> PEER-
>>>>      created mappings have whatever filtering and mapping behavior
>> is
>>>>      normal for that particular NAT / firewall.
>>>> 
>>>>   o  Integrated WGLC feedback (small changes to abstract,
>>> definitions,
>>>>      and small edits throughout the document)
>>>> 
>>>>   o  allow new Options to be defined with a specification (rather
>>> than
>>>>      standards action)
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> pcp mailing list
>>>> pcp@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> pcp mailing list
>>> pcp@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> pcp mailing list
>>> pcp@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pcp mailing list
> pcp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp