Re: [pcp] section 8

[Tina TSOU <[e-mail]>]

Francis,
Reply inline:
________________________________________
发件人: [e-mail] [[e-mail]] 代表 Francis Dupont [[e-mail]]
发送时间: 2011年10月15日 19:47
到: Tina TSOU
Cc: [e-mail]
主题: Re: [pcp] section 8

 In your previous mail you wrote:

   Hi,
   In section 8, it 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.  In the absence
      of a PCP option indicating otherwise, it is REQUIRED that PCP-created
      explicit dynamic mappings be assigned the same external IP address."
   It is not consistent with what we have discussed in the mailing list below. And i
  t is a bit ambiguous in reading.

   How about changing the second sentence from on of the 4 candidates as below?

   Alternative 1:
   PCP client should request same external IP address for an application if there is
   already any existing explicit mapping for that application.

=> the section 8 rule is per subscriber+host so the alternative should be too.
[TT] Do you mean that section 8 has defined the same external IP address per subscriber+host, and we don't need to propose the alternative texts? 
If so, could you please point out the texts for me? Thanks.

   Alternative 2:
   PCP client should request the same external IP address if there are existing expl
  ict mappings, unless there is explicit reasons of not doing so, e.g. http://tools.
  ietf.org/html/draft-penno-pcp-zones-00

=> same issue

   Alternative 3:
   It is indicated by the PCP client that PCP-created explicit dynamic mappings be a
  ssigned the same external IP address, unless there are explicit reasons of not doi
  ng so, e.g. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-penno-pcp-zones-00"

=> same issue

   Alternative 4:
   It is indicated by the PCP client that PCP-created explicit dynamic mappings be a
  ssigned the same external IP address, unless a PCP option indicates different exte
  rnal IP address

=> same issue

I can't see the problem, the text says all mappings (even there is nothing
about static mappings, is there a problem to add them?) get the same external
IP address if there is no option indicating otherwise.

[TT] From the current texts, it is easily understood that the address is allocated by PCP server.
However,  the same external IP address for one application is required by the PCP client.



BTW IWFs work far better if the affinity is per subscriber.

IMHO the best should be to make the affinity larger, i.e., per subscriber
and for all mappings, but at a lower level, i.e., with a RECOMMEND/SHOULD
in place of the current REQUIRE/MUST.

[TT] Agree.

Regards

[e-mail]
_______________________________________________
pcp mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp