IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> Tue, 11 September 2012 17:26 UTC

Return-Path: <dwing@cisco.com>
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 0F31721F87CB for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 10:26:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 r+CJi721VMGw for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 10:26:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mtv-iport-4.cisco.com (mtv-iport-4.cisco.com [173.36.130.15]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C19AF21F87DC for <pcp@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 10:26:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1348; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1347384391; x=1348593991; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date: message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=KkHlFoq19R2kjSxiBhbX/p56phChaNwm9s798Rsrn70=; b=W6BqkopHdEQUJGXISIvtn+RPnepz7xuzPbAYxN3OEfmm1ELHpBfkQQDl U0xPyAn0YAAfHBMOjM5CX3Ovn549g84w0bG6TwXpIeIWVNw42GwS39e3x VUONhfjxOjjfPF0HBrj2+q48h2UWVnzdZZiq0qtbTQ8ZGbC/rujK87HpS c=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjMFAItzT1CrRDoI/2dsb2JhbABFq1mPeIEHgiABAQEDAQgKARQDQwwFBwEDAgkPAgQBASgHGSMKCQgBAQQTCxeHaAWbLaBUixCGJgOIIDWFDokQjSKBZ4MG
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,406,1344211200"; d="scan'208";a="57855758"
Received: from mtv-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.58.8]) by mtv-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 Sep 2012 17:26:31 +0000
Received: from dwingWS ([10.32.240.196]) by mtv-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q8BHQVTL031289; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 17:26:31 GMT
From: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
To: 'Simon Perreault' <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
References: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E57B08381@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <504898BD.7000702@viagenie.ca> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E57B08524@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <5048AC63.50700@viagenie.ca> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E57B085C5@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <5048C127.50704@viagenie.ca> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E5A10BF57@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <074001cd903f$ffc7b570$ff572050$@com> <504F7105.6010108@viagenie.ca>
In-Reply-To: <504F7105.6010108@viagenie.ca>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 10:26:30 -0700
Message-ID: <074f01cd9042$955ddbd0$c0199370$@com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Ac2QQKci+B2cVOFFTv66XA5CYpjtWwAAaSQw
Content-Language: en-us
Cc: 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: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 17:26:33 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon Perreault [mailto:simon.perreault@viagenie.ca]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 10:13 AM
> To: Dan Wing
> Cc: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com; pcp@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [pcp] PREFIX64 PCP Option for NAT64: draft-boucadair-pcp-
> nat64-prefix64-option
> 
> Le 2012-09-11 13:08, Dan Wing a écrit :
> > The message flow for the new PCP Opcode implies there is always
> > an additional round trip.  There is only an additional round-trip
> > if MAP (or PEER) is used.  If, on the other hand, the host only
> > needed to learn the NAT64 prefix (and then it set up a TCP
> > connection), the number of messages on the network is exactly
> > the same for the MAP option or the new Opcode, assuming the PCP
> > client simply leaves the dangling MAP-created mapping until its
> > Lifetime expires.
> 
> Can't the two opcodes be sent simultaneously? No need to wait for one
> request to finish before starting another one...

Good point.  Learning the PREFIX64 can actually be deferred, as 
knowing the PREFIX64 is not time critical to sending the SIP INVITE.

-d


> 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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email