Re: [pcp] WG last call on draft-ietf-pcp-base-13

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Reinaldo Penno [mailto:rpenno@juniper.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 1:52 AM
> To: Dan Wing; 'Tina TSOU'; pcp@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [pcp] WG last call on draft-ietf-pcp-base-13
> 
> I actually disagree with this requirement. I would like to see it
> relaxed
> since for various reasons a client might actually wants certain
> explicit
> mappings bound to different public Ips.
> 
> The reasons are discussed in:
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-penno-pcp-zones-00

Then how about:

   In the
   absence of a PCP option indicating otherwise, it is 
   REQUIRED that PCP-created explicit dynamic mappings be assigned
   the same external IP address

-d

> 
> On 7/26/11 7:07 AM, "Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Tina TSOU [mailto:Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 9:55 AM
> >> To: Dan Wing; pcp@ietf.org
> >> Subject: RE: [pcp] WG last call on draft-ietf-pcp-base-13
> >>
> >> Dan,
> >> Thanks.
> >> It is what we agreed on the texts in the mailing list before:
> >> "If there is already an active explicit dynamic mapping,
> >>   it will be mapped to a certain external IP address.
> >>   When the PCP client makes another explicit dynamic mapping,
> >>   it SHOULD place the external IP address of the existing
> >>   mapping into the Requested External Address of the MAP
> >>   request.  By doing this, all of the PCP client's explicit
> >>   dynamic mappings will be on the same external address."
> >
> > That's saying something different -- that is saying that
> > all PCP-created explicit dynamic mappings have to be on
> > the same external address.
> >
> > I added a second sentence, so it now reads:
> >
> >       It is REQUIRED that the PCP-controlled device assign the same
> >       external IP address to PCP-created explicit dynamic mappings
> and
> >       to implicit dynamic mappings for a given Internal Host.  It is
> > ...............................................................^^^^^
> >       also REQUIRED that PCP-created explicit dynamic mappings be
> > ......^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >       assigned the same external IP address.
> > ......^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> >
> >> We should specify the action of the PCP client.
> >
> > -d
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Best Regards,
> >> Tina TSOU
> >> http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Dan Wing [mailto:dwing@cisco.com]
> >> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 5:01 PM
> >> To: Tina TSOU; pcp@ietf.org
> >> Subject: RE: [pcp] WG last call on draft-ietf-pcp-base-13
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: pcp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of
> >>> Tina Zouting
> >>> Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 8:32 PM
> >>> To: pcp@ietf.org
> >>> Subject: Re: [pcp] WG last call on draft-ietf-pcp-base-13
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>> It seems that http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/pcp/trac/ticket/24,
> "PCP
> >>> mappings same public IP address as dynamic mappings" is not
> reflected
> >>> in the latest version.
> >>> Sorry for the late feedback.
> >>
> >> I am not online at the moment, so I can't read ticket #24.
> >>
> >> Section 7 says:
> >>    It is REQUIRED that the PCP-controlled device assign the same
> >>    external IP address to PCP-created explicit dynamic mappings and
> to
> >>    implicit dynamic mappings for a given Internal Host.
> >>
> >> Is that ok?
> >>
> >> -d
> >>
> >>> Best Regards,
> >>> Tina TSOU
> >>> http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: pcp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of
> >>> Alain Durand
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 8:34 PM
> >>> To: pcp@ietf.org
> >>> Subject: [pcp] WG last call on draft-ietf-pcp-base-13
> >>>
> >>> draft-ietf-pcp-base-13 has been published to address the comments
> >>> received during wg last call on the -12 revision. We would like to
> >>> start a 1-week working group last call on this new revision.
> >>>
> >>> The PCP wg chairs, Alain & Dave.
> >>>
> >>> Sent from my iPad
> >>>
> >>> On Jul 5, 2011, at 11:19 PM, "Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> draft-ietf-pcp-base-13 was just posted.  Changes are in
> >>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pcp-base-13#appendix-B.1,
> and
> >>> copied
> >>>> below.
> >>>>
> >>>> Side-by-side diffs between -12 and -13 are at:
> >>>> http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pcp-base-13.txt
> >>>>
> >>>> This should resolve all comments from -12's WGLC.
> >>>>
> >>>> -d
> >>>>
> >>>>   o  All addresses are 128 bits.  IPv4 addresses are represented
> by
> >>>>      IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses (::FFFF/96)
> >>>>
> >>>>   o  PCP request header now includes PCP client's port (in
> addition
> >>> to
> >>>>      the client's IP address, which was in -12).
> >>>>
> >>>>   o  new ADDRESS_MISMATCH error.
> >>>>
> >>>>   o  removed PROCESSING_ERROR error, which was too similar to
> >>>>      MALFORMED_REQUEST.
> >>>>
> >>>>   o  Tweaked text describing how PCP client deals with multiple
> PCP
> >>>>      server addresses (Section 6.1)
> >>>>
> >>>>   o  clarified that when overloaded, the server can send
> >>>>      SERVER_OVERLOADED (and drop requests) or simply drop
> requests.
> >>>>
> >>>>   o  Clarified how PCP client chooses MAP4 or MAP6, depending on
> >> the
> >>>>      presence of its own IPv6 or IPv4 interfaces (Section 7).
> >>>>
> >>>>   o  compliant PCP server MUST support MAPx and PEERx, SHOULD
> >> support
> >>>>      ability to disable support.
> >>>>
> >>>>   o  clarified that MAP-created mappings have no filtering, and
> >> PEER-
> >>>>      created mappings have whatever filtering and mapping behavior
> >> is
> >>>>      normal for that particular NAT / firewall.
> >>>>
> >>>>   o  Integrated WGLC feedback (small changes to abstract,
> >>> definitions,
> >>>>      and small edits throughout the document)
> >>>>
> >>>>   o  allow new Options to be defined with a specification (rather
> >>> than
> >>>>      standards action)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> pcp mailing list
> >>>> pcp@ietf.org
> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> pcp mailing list
> >>> pcp@ietf.org
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> pcp mailing list
> >>> pcp@ietf.org
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > pcp mailing list
> > pcp@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp