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

[Tina TSOU <[e-mail]>]

Reinaldo, Dan et al,
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 with the existing dynamic mappings. PCP client will put external IP address of the existing mapping into the Requested External Address of the MAP request."



Best Regards,
Tina TSOU
http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html


-----Original Message-----
From: Reinaldo Penno [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 11:08 AM
To: Dan Wing; Tina TSOU; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [pcp] WG last call on draft-ietf-pcp-base-13

Looks good.


On 7/27/11 6:24 AM, "Dan Wing" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Reinaldo Penno [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 1:52 AM
>> To: Dan Wing; 'Tina TSOU'; [e-mail]
>> 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" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Tina TSOU [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 9:55 AM
>>>> To: Dan Wing; [e-mail]
>>>> 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:[e-mail]]
>>>> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 5:01 PM
>>>> To: Tina TSOU; [e-mail]
>>>> Subject: RE: [pcp] WG last call on draft-ietf-pcp-base-13
>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
>> Of
>>>>> Tina Zouting
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 8:32 PM
>>>>> To: [e-mail]
>>>>> 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: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
>> Of
>>>>> Alain Durand
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 8:34 PM
>>>>> To: [e-mail]
>>>>> 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" <[e-mail]> 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
>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> pcp mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> pcp mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> pcp mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp
>