Re: [pcp] FW: New Version Notification for draft-rpcw-pcp-pmipv6-serv-discovery-01.txt

"Prashanth Patil (praspati)" <praspati@cisco.com> Thu, 18 October 2012 12:15 UTC

Return-Path: <praspati@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 F37EE21F8629 for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 05:15:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.846
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.846 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 St04Dsb1nMDM for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 05:15:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7DA521F8647 for <pcp@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 05:15:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5686; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1350562507; x=1351772107; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=oGgFdrYHCq7yRjkjY07UrrR5yTxp81mrYlJOz92gRC8=; b=XEix8aXabzk61jCnfGLXL/iBBwTIZmy9arvx1sF5UfSE2HzL+sWOnaA+ 6aPeB+jkFsr8pWkSI86SS6fepoPTJBGnFprMaYrqfKv7jFkqMsS7LQE7i bXOSiAjXs2VCKhgoO7b1Cmn+XwxTuVZRljv6NUpJgUqHgN4MxQfUzTMLt U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgEFAODxf1CtJV2a/2dsb2JhbABFhhK5NnWBCIIgAQEBBAEBAQ8BIToJAhIBCBwGIgQfBgscCQIEDgUIARIHh1ADDwucJo0aBYkoDYlUgRyJVIYTN2ADlBaCaooPgyWBa4Jvghc
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,606,1344211200"; d="scan'208";a="129978054"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Oct 2012 12:15:04 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com [173.37.183.76]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q9ICF3Vu029592 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:15:04 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x07.cisco.com ([169.254.7.203]) by xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com ([173.37.183.76]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 07:15:03 -0500
From: "Prashanth Patil (praspati)" <praspati@cisco.com>
To: GangChen <phdgang@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [pcp] FW: New Version Notification for draft-rpcw-pcp-pmipv6-serv-discovery-01.txt
Thread-Index: AQHNrEOApab0il2HMUygZlEUftqugJe/q+KA
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:15:03 +0000
Message-ID: <B235506D63D65E43B2E40FD27715372E134BB535@xmb-rcd-x07.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAM+vMESUm0y1KEib+Erw_r+wg710sheG5iu7bD9vE00qgWAJsg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.3.120616
x-originating-ip: [72.163.206.155]
x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19284.002
x-tm-as-result: No--41.829100-8.000000-31
x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No
x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="euc-kr"
Content-ID: <D12A15869F0FB24395919BF352F55861@cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "pcp@ietf.org" <pcp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [pcp] FW: New Version Notification for draft-rpcw-pcp-pmipv6-serv-discovery-01.txt
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, 18 Oct 2012 12:15:09 -0000

Hi Geng,
Thanks for the review.
Comments inline.. 

On 17/10/12 1:30 PM, "GangChen" <phdgang@gmail.com> wrote:

>Hello authors,
>
>Few questions are below trying to make further clarifications.
>
>1. I have a little confusion on the statement
>"   If the dynamic outbound mapping is for the local access network then
>   there are two cases to consider - In the first case where there is a
>   nested NAT[I-D.penno-pcp-nested-nat], the mobile access gateway will
>   function as both PCP server and PCP proxy forwarding the accepted PCP
>   request to CGN PCP server.  In the second case, where there is no
>   CGN, mobile access gateway will function as a PCP server in the local
>   access network.
>"
>When the traffic is heading to the NAT in local access network, there
>is no NAT processing in homenet. Wondering to know what is the case of
>nested NAT you refer to?

Yes, there shouldn¹t be a case for nested NAT as per RFC5844. We'll
correct this.


>
>2. What is the goal of designing mobility options? I read the Section
>3, it seems a smart PCP proxy is sufficient to handle the traffic
>dispatch? what the consideration to this option?

Mobility options are required to convey domain name of the PCP Server
within the home network to be used by the MAG. The MAG is unaware of the
PCP server details within various home networks and this option allows PCP
information to be propagated to the local network from the home network
via PMIP signaling.


>
>
>3. How do you handle the case of IPv6 offloading?

PMIPv6 for offloading does not assume NPTv6
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-sipto-option-06#sectio
n-1) so the PCP server is only for firewall.

For IPv6, as the MN can be assigned an IPv6 prefix from the access network
in addition to the IPv6 prefix from the home network, thereby allowing the
MN to use an IPv6 address from the access network for traffic that needs
to be offloaded in the access network. This scenario is similar to IPv6
multihoming and
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-patil-pcp-multihoming-00#section-3
explains PCP client behavior in such cases.


We intend to add IPv6 details in the next revision.

-Prashanth



>
>Best Regards
>
>Gang
>
>
>2012/9/17, Prashanth Patil (praspati) <praspati@cisco.com>:
>> This is an updated version after accommodating review comments.
>>
>> Comments and suggestions welcome.
>>
>> -Prashanth
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>On 31/08/12 8:53 PM, "internet-drafts@ietf.org"
>>><internet-drafts@ietf.org>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>A new version of I-D, draft-rpcw-pcp-pmipv6-serv-discovery-01.txt
>>>>has been successfully submitted by Prashanth Patil and posted to the
>>>>IETF repository.
>>>>
>>>>Filename:	 draft-rpcw-pcp-pmipv6-serv-discovery
>>>>Revision:	 01
>>>>Title:		 PCP Server Discovery with IPv4 traffic offload for Proxy
>>>>Mobile
>>>>IPv6
>>>>Creation date:	 2012-08-31
>>>>WG ID:		 Individual Submission
>>>>Number of pages: 13
>>>>URL:
>>>>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rpcw-pcp-pmipv6-serv-discover
>>>>y-
>>>>0
>>>>1.txt
>>>>Status:
>>>>http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rpcw-pcp-pmipv6-serv-discovery
>>>>Htmlized:
>>>>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rpcw-pcp-pmipv6-serv-discovery-01
>>>>Diff:
>>>>http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-rpcw-pcp-pmipv6-serv-discovery-0
>>>>1
>>>>
>>>>Abstract:
>>>>   This document proposes a solution to PCP Server Discovery problems
>>>>in
>>>>   Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) networks when both home network traffic
>>>>   and traffic off-loaded to local access network require traversing a
>>>>   gateway implementing NAT and/or Firewall.  This draft proposes
>>>>   enhancements to DHCPv4 Relay Agent by introducing a new sub-option
>>>>   under DHCPv4 Relay Option and to PMIPv6 signaling through additional
>>>>   options to Proxy Binding Update/Acknowledgement messages.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The IETF Secretariat
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> pcp mailing list
>> pcp@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp
>>