Re: [pcp] #63: Handling multiple prefixes

[<[e-mail]>]

Hi Senthil,

Fixed in my local copy.

Thanks.
Cheers,
Med

>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : Senthil Sivakumar (ssenthil) [mailto:[e-mail]]
>Envoyé : jeudi 6 juin 2013 15:32
>À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/OLN; pcp issue tracker; draft-ietf-pcp-nat64-
>[e-mail]
>Cc : [e-mail]
>Objet : Re: [pcp] #63: Handling multiple prefixes
>
>Hi Med,
>Can you please revise the first sentence as
>"The PCP server is required to disambiguate", the rest of the text
>clarifies the questions that I had.
>
>Thanks
>Senthil
>
>On 6/5/13 4:21 AM, "[e-mail]"
><[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>Hi Senthil,
>>
>>You can find this text in the new version available at:
>>http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-pcp-nat64-prefix64-03.txt
>>
>>The PCP server is supposed to be able to disambiguate
>>      prefixes used for IPv6 address synthesis and other prefixes used
>>      to avoid any NAT64 deployed in the network.  The PCP server can be
>>      configured with a customized IPv6 prefix list (i.e., specific to a
>>      PCP client or a group of PCP clients) or system-wise IPv6 prefix
>>      list (i.e., the same list is return for any PCP client).
>>
>>
>>Please let me know if this text answers your two question.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>Med
>>
>>>-----Message d'origine-----
>>>De : Senthil Sivakumar (ssenthil) [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>Envoyé : mardi 4 juin 2013 21:07
>>>À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/OLN; pcp issue tracker; draft-ietf-pcp-nat64-
>>>[e-mail]
>>>Cc : [e-mail]
>>>Objet : Re: [pcp] #63: Handling multiple prefixes
>>>
>>>Hi Med,
>>>
>>>On 6/4/13 5:39 AM, "[e-mail]"
>>><[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hi Senthil,
>>>>
>>>>Thank you for the review.
>>>>
>>>>The current text says the following:
>>>>
>>>>   When multiple prefixes are configured in a network, the PCP server
>>>>   MAY be configured to return multiple PREFIX64 options in the same
>>>>   message to the PCP client.  The PCP server includes in the first
>>>>   PREFIX64 option, which appears in the PCP message it sends to the PCP
>>>>   client, the prefix to perform local IPv6 address synthesis [RFC6052].
>>>>   Remaining PREFIX64 options convey any other Pref64::/n values
>>>>   configured . Returning these prefixes allows an end host to identify
>>>>   them as translated addresses, and instead prefer IPv4 or an
>>>>   alternative network interface in order to avoid any NAT64 deployed in
>>>>   the network.
>>>>
>>>>Doesn't this text solves your concern? Or you think more elaboration is
>>>>needed?
>>>
>>>I have two questions/comments about this text.
>>>1. How should the server order these prefixes?
>>>2.How does the server know which prefix should be the first prefix handed
>>>to the requesting client?
>>>
>>>Thanks
>>>Senthil
>>>>
>>>>Cheers,
>>>>Med
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>-----Message d'origine-----
>>>>>De : pcp issue tracker [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>>>Envoyé : samedi 1 juin 2013 00:54
>>>>>À : [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>>>>>Cc : [e-mail]
>>>>>Objet : [pcp] #63: Handling multiple prefixes
>>>>>
>>>>>#63: Handling multiple prefixes
>>>>>
>>>>> The only comment I have is this document doesn't address the multiple
>>>>> prefixes that could be present on a NAT64 device.
>>>>> Any guidelines on which prefix should be reported would be useful.
>>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>-------------------------------------+---------------------------------
>>>>>--
>>>>>--
>>>>> Reporter:  Senthil Sivakumar        |      Owner:  draft-ietf-pcp-
>>>>>  (ssenthil) <[e-mail]>    |  [e-mail]
>>>>>     Type:  defect                   |     Status:  new
>>>>> Priority:  major                    |  Milestone:
>>>>>Component:  nat64-prefix64           |    Version:
>>>>> Severity:  -                        |   Keywords:
>>>>>-------------------------------------+---------------------------------
>>>>>--
>>>>>--
>>>>>
>>>>>Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/pcp/trac/ticket/63>
>>>>>pcp <http://tools.ietf.org/pcp/>
>>>>
>>