Re: [pcp] WG Call for Adoption: draft-tsou-pcp-natcoord-09

Qiong <bingxuere@gmail.com> Wed, 09 January 2013 13:27 UTC

Return-Path: <bingxuere@gmail.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 0B1AD21F846B for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Jan 2013 05:27:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.25
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.25 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.348, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 0qsxGp8Z8gSl for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Jan 2013 05:27:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ob0-f182.google.com (mail-ob0-f182.google.com [209.85.214.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBAD221F8440 for <pcp@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Jan 2013 05:27:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ob0-f182.google.com with SMTP id 16so2177906obc.13 for <pcp@ietf.org>; Wed, 09 Jan 2013 05:27:23 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=pYnhINNajK4bmdSUSP9qJo4SI0DPa8kLfjhoizXFAzE=; b=sPAURy+aKomzpuaocN2PkhPgyYn90nK85QUHW7Xqsrsb8+ETTWNgMP3wLQ3l+pFM52 CvlJ3O49IH2UwJnXpEYZaOHKLYiHvKXJ4Uyp5YqUrRDSUQLtCWwscWO3tMWAcAjsqovG H5BCTgY0E6vQe00i5AYMvPA1tTBkK6CVmD3YM13G/4ImIVL1TxRXqlgmuvwb4HyX58N/ h+iT3S8T6sQTmQytEm7c0Yim6U5RFnu6gSvEfepoXBWy+iqMaxk0s2SjRd6uNUY6kY9f +Qd6IOTGKPX2kdLn9j89iVa9X05jtN/Oq0rIOwDOt6w5yhH4DrqgdWTEInp2TR9w7l3x BrzA==
Received: by 10.60.31.68 with SMTP id y4mr39563302oeh.121.1357738043571; Wed, 09 Jan 2013 05:27:23 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.76.80.133 with HTTP; Wed, 9 Jan 2013 05:26:43 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <023501cdecf7$a19b9e20$e4d2da60$@cisco.com>
References: <45A697A8FFD7CF48BCF2BE7E106F06041E9D32@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <45A697A8FFD7CF48BCF2BE7E106F06041E9D48@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <01ab01cde953$1cbfed70$563fc850$@cisco.com> <CAH3bfAD+xumMtSWAm8bc_C-0FUBJZ_YXDJHwN9Xw0MNBnon=6w@mail.gmail.com> <037201cdeae9$b4109e80$1c31db80$@cisco.com> <50EA9909.4040401@viagenie.ca> <023501cdecf7$a19b9e20$e4d2da60$@cisco.com>
From: Qiong <bingxuere@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:26:43 +0800
Message-ID: <CAH3bfACunK1f0xad6FqvkNT8huRk8FU7U0J9SwrSmG82jLDvRg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e89a8f642aa8c8ff0f04d2db05fa"
Cc: "pcp@ietf.org" <pcp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [pcp] WG Call for Adoption: draft-tsou-pcp-natcoord-09
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: Wed, 09 Jan 2013 13:27:25 -0000

Dear Dan,


Another question:  what is the relationship between draft-tsou-pcp-natcoord
> and draft-sun-dhc-port-set-option and draft-wu-dhc-port-set-option?  I
> saw there was a request to adopt draft-sun-dhc-port-set-option in DHC,
> and lots of discussion.
>
> I have not seen a discussion of using DHCP versus PCP for this
> functionality, which concluded that PCP was the better choice.  Did
> that discussion occur?  If so, can we get a pointer to that
> discussion?
>
[Qiong] For the relationship between draft-tsou-pcp-natcoord,
draft-sun-dhc-port-set-option and draft-wu-dhc-port-set-option,
draft-tsou-pcp-natcoord is a port-set extension for pcp-base and
draft-sun-dhc-port-set-option(updated version of
draft-wu-dhc-port-set-option ) is a port-set extension on dhcpv4. Both
draft-tsou-pcp-natcoord and draft-sun-dhc-port-set-option can work with
lightweight 4over6, but draft-tsou-pcp-natcoord is not only designed for
lw4over6 use case. It can also be used for other cases like Reinaldo's
firewall, SLNAT44, application-based port-set reservation, etc.

For lw4over6 use case, we do have a discussion of using DHCP or PCP among
lw4over6 co-authors (no much discussion in the mailing-list). But it's
truely hard to say which one is better. Different operators will have
different situations. For example, for operators with existing DHCP server
and is not planning to deploy CGN, they may prefer dhcp solution; while for
operators with no existing DHCP server and will deploy CGN in the early
stage, they may prefer pcp solution. So it is really a deployment choice
for them.

Hope it clarifies.

Best wishes
Qiong



  first


>
> -d
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> pcp mailing list
> pcp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp
>



-- 
==============================================
Qiong Sun
China Telecom Beijing Research Institude


Open source code:
lightweight 4over6: *http://sourceforge.net/projects/laft6/*
PCP-natcoord:* http://sourceforge.net/projects/pcpportsetdemo/ *
===============================================