IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [pcp] #63: Handling multiple prefixes

"Senthil Sivakumar (ssenthil)" <ssenthil@cisco.com> Tue, 04 June 2013 20:07 UTC

Return-Path: <ssenthil@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 6478D21F96C6 for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Jun 2013 13:07:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 NOGsTRC8MAmD for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Jun 2013 13:06:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7939A21F9A9F for <pcp@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Jun 2013 12:07:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2347; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1370372829; x=1371582429; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=kOmemgJKxgpo3za/y1TefLXWrWP5SfX4T0pv1OaRA4w=; b=jRP2vbYm/1EaduIGkJieJHb84t9Sogr2u3zb4PPm8Na/X/w3VvQCyFTp DFui2hFWHU4/LrICDyGjn0cxipfJInJhjBGei0H0UgWRVW+iCqmlk+CdS iwsxQcHUDLbEpWHtcKVZxnNsgEuI0UhVAXe8DYSwY4yFa9RRRA1onm8sp k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ag4FAMI5rlGtJV2a/2dsb2JhbABQCoMJML8pexZ0giUBBHkSAQgiHTkUEQIEAQ0FCIgFDL1ijWgUdzEHgnphA4hoiwWEe4p3hSCDD4In
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,801,1363132800"; d="scan'208";a="218734803"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Jun 2013 19:07:02 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x05.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x05.cisco.com [173.36.12.79]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r54J72Fx001662 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 4 Jun 2013 19:07:02 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x15.cisco.com ([169.254.5.94]) by xhc-aln-x05.cisco.com ([173.36.12.79]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 4 Jun 2013 14:07:01 -0500
From: "Senthil Sivakumar (ssenthil)" <ssenthil@cisco.com>
To: "mohamed.boucadair@orange.com" <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>, pcp issue tracker <trac@tools.ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-pcp-nat64-prefix64@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pcp-nat64-prefix64@tools.ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [pcp] #63: Handling multiple prefixes
Thread-Index: AQHOXlHExdMnhekn80OxiNm3pUsvuJklpesAgABblgA=
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2013 19:07:01 +0000
Message-ID: <CB1B483277FEC94E9B58357040EE5D0232596E1B@xmb-rcd-x15.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36ED4CCFCA0@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.4.130416
x-originating-ip: [64.102.83.112]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <7DD363353DF3C2429FDCEB899BE1907A@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "pcp@ietf.org" <pcp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [pcp] #63: Handling multiple prefixes
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: Tue, 04 Jun 2013 20:07:03 -0000

Hi Med,

On 6/4/13 5:39 AM, "mohamed.boucadair@orange.com"
<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> 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:trac@tools.ietf.org]
>>Envoyé : samedi 1 juin 2013 00:54
>>À : draft-ietf-pcp-nat64-prefix64@tools.ietf.org; ssenthil@cisco.com
>>Cc : pcp@ietf.org
>>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) <ssenthil@cisco.com>    |  nat64-prefix64@tools.ietf.org
>>     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/>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email