Re: [pcp] PREFIX64 PCP Option for NAT64: draft-boucadair-pcp-nat64-prefix64-option

Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca> Thu, 06 September 2012 14:00 UTC

Return-Path: <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B87B21F8546 for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 07:00:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GhFUEt5-BEgI for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 07:00:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (unknown [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000:226:55ff:fe57:14db]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F133421F8539 for <pcp@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 07:00:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from porto.nomis80.org (unknown [IPv6:2620:0:230:c000:c0c6:fcc8:f214:3951]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4A0D9415C2; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 10:00:04 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <5048AC63.50700@viagenie.ca>
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 10:00:03 -0400
From: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120828 Thunderbird/15.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
References: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E57B08381@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <504898BD.7000702@viagenie.ca> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E57B08524@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
In-Reply-To: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E57B08524@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: "pcp@ietf.org" <pcp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [pcp] PREFIX64 PCP Option for NAT64: draft-boucadair-pcp-nat64-prefix64-option
X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: PCP wg discussion list <pcp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pcp>, <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pcp>
List-Post: <mailto:pcp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp>, <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 14:00:06 -0000

Mohamed,

Thanks for the very detailed answer! The background story is much 
clearer to me now.

Le 2012-09-06 09:20, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com a écrit :
>> Consider a PCP client that receives a MAP response containing a
>> PREFIX64 option. Does the option apply a) only to the mapping
>> contained in the MAP response, or b) to all future mappings as
>> well?
>
> Med: I'm tempted to say the prefix will be used for all mappings
> associated with the same PCP server. A record to associate a PCP
> server and a PREFIX64 should be maintained by the client. We need to
> check if there are scenarios where the same PCP Server controls
> NAT64s configured with distinct PREFIX64 servicing the same IPv6-only
> host.

I still have a problem with this. The problem is that the PREFIX64 data 
should not be associated with a MAP request because it is global to the 
server. Returning it as part of a MAP response makes no sense to me.

Suggestion: why not create a new opcode for querying server-global 
parameters? The PCP client would use this opcode once, get the PREFIX64 
data in the response, then would do MAP requests separately as usual. I 
think this would result in clearer semantics and implementations.

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