Re: [pcp] pcp-base-19

["Dan Wing" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tina TSOU [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 3:06 PM
> To: Dan Wing
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [pcp] pcp-base-19
...
> 		2. P28, section 9
> 
> 
> 		"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 Address. In
> the absence
> 		of a PCP option indicating otherwise, it is REQUIRED that
> all
> 		PCP-created explicit dynamic mappings be assigned the same
> external
> 		IP address."
> 
> 
> 
> 		How about replace "In the absence of a PCP option
> indicating otherwise,
> 		it is REQUIRED that all PCP-created explicit dynamic
> mappings be
> 		assigned the same external IP address."
> 
> 		with
> 
> 		"It is indicated by the PCP client that PCP-created
> explicit dynamic
> 		mappings be assigned the same external IP address, unless
> there are
> 		explicit reasons of not doing so, e.g.
> 		http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-penno-pcp-zones-00"?
> 
> 
> 		Because "It is REQUIRED that the PCP" give the requirement
> from the
> 
> 
> 		server's point of view, I think we should also give the
> requirement
> 
> 
> 		from the client's point of view.
> 
> 
> 		This is more or less what Dan suggested before, perhaps an
> oversight.
> 
> 
> 
> 	I don't understand the nuance between the wording.  Can you give
> an
> 	example of what the existing text prohibits / breaks / disallows?
> 
> The existing text disallows client to request same external IP
> proactively.


The client can request the address it wants in the Suggested 
External Address field, which exists for both MAP and PEER.


> You agreed my comments earlier before.

I recall a discussion on this previously, yes.  I don't recall any
definitive conclusion.  Here are pointers to the end of two
threads related to the previous discussion:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pcp/current/msg01632.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pcp/current/msg01627.html


If there was a definitive conclusion previously please provide 
a pointer and accept my apologies for my oversight.

-d