Re: [pcp] Comments on draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp-03

Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com> Fri, 03 August 2012 17:53 UTC

Return-Path: <dthaler@microsoft.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 02B4021F8E01 for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Aug 2012 10:53:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.595
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.595 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.804, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_24=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_25=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qpzMMKsZNIwS for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Aug 2012 10:53:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from va3outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (va3ehsobe006.messaging.microsoft.com [216.32.180.16]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E09521F8D65 for <pcp@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Aug 2012 10:53:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail212-va3-R.bigfish.com (10.7.14.239) by VA3EHSOBE008.bigfish.com (10.7.40.28) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Fri, 3 Aug 2012 17:53:18 +0000
Received: from mail212-va3 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail212-va3-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B659E8C0367; Fri, 3 Aug 2012 17:53:18 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.8; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:TK5EX14HUBC105.redmond.corp.microsoft.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
X-SpamScore: -28
X-BigFish: VS-28(zz9371I542M1432I4015Izz1202hzz1033IL8275dhz2fh2a8h668h839h944hd25hf0ah107ah)
Received-SPF: pass (mail212-va3: domain of microsoft.com designates 131.107.125.8 as permitted sender) client-ip=131.107.125.8; envelope-from=dthaler@microsoft.com; helo=TK5EX14HUBC105.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ; icrosoft.com ;
Received: from mail212-va3 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail212-va3 (MessageSwitch) id 1344016397751114_23828; Fri, 3 Aug 2012 17:53:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from VA3EHSMHS015.bigfish.com (unknown [10.7.14.253]) by mail212-va3.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9ACB9E0046; Fri, 3 Aug 2012 17:53:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from TK5EX14HUBC105.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (131.107.125.8) by VA3EHSMHS015.bigfish.com (10.7.99.25) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Fri, 3 Aug 2012 17:53:16 +0000
Received: from TK5EX14MLTW653.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com (157.54.24.14) by TK5EX14HUBC105.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.80.48) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.309.3; Fri, 3 Aug 2012 17:53:12 +0000
Received: from TK5EX14MLTW651.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com (157.54.71.39) by TK5EX14MLTW653.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com (157.54.24.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.309.3; Fri, 3 Aug 2012 10:53:12 -0700
Received: from TK5EX14MBXW604.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([169.254.4.170]) by TK5EX14MLTW651.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([157.54.71.39]) with mapi id 14.02.0309.003; Fri, 3 Aug 2012 10:53:12 -0700
From: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>
To: "Reinaldo Penno (repenno)" <repenno@cisco.com>, "pcp@ietf.org" <pcp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Comments on draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp-03
Thread-Index: AQHNcZ+sIMSFRn6eBkOpyqHfeftPVJdIXN9Q
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2012 17:53:11 +0000
Message-ID: <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF653B7380B2@TK5EX14MBXW604.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
References: <CC415C1F.88D4%repenno@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CC415C1F.88D4%repenno@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.41]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com
Subject: Re: [pcp] Comments on draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp-03
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: Fri, 03 Aug 2012 17:53:21 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pcp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Reinaldo Penno (repenno)
> Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 10:45 AM
> To: pcp@ietf.org
> Subject: [pcp] Comments on draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp-03
> 
> After reviewing draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp-03 I believe there are some things I
> believe we need to tie up.

I agree.

> When a PCP Client contacts PCP Servers in parallel, say, IPx1, IPy1 and
> IPz1 as mentioned in draft and all respond then:
> 
> 1 - What happens to the state in y1 and z1 if PCP Client chooses x1 to
> communicate? Probably let it age out or delete mappings.

What do you mean by "chooses x1"?   if we're talking about MAP (for a
listening application) do you mean when x, y, and y
are all NATs rather than FWs, and the client app can only deal with one
external IP address?

If they're firewalls (so the external IP address/port isn't different), or
if the client app can deal with multiple external IP/ports, then I don't think
it would choose one.
 
> 2 - If there is a failure on x1 and PCP Client decides to communicate with y1,
> there might be some 'leftover' mappings for internal IP:port (see 1).
> PCP Client will need to delete or reuse existing state in y1. Important to
> notice that there is no way to guarantee that PCP Server will allocate same
> external IP:ports.
> 
> 3 - I guess it is assumed that if PCP Server is co-located with NAT, if x1 fails,
> traffic (PCP and data) will be diverted to y1.

Unclear which model you're referring to (different external IP:port or
same external IP:port), can you clarify your question?
 
> 4 - Related (2). The draft says that when a PCP Server is unreachable (say, y1)
> PCP Client will continue to try to communicate even though other PCP Server
> are available.  The only way to 'communicate' is sending a request, which
> might create state. So, when y1 is back up. y1 might allocate a different
> external IP:port than other server.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Reinaldo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pcp mailing list
> pcp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp