Re: [pcp] PCP in Service Provider Networks - (was Re: Comments on draft-cheshire-pcp-recovery-02)

[Reinaldo Penno <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for the answers Dave.

In order to move forward with the base spec I will work on a separate draft
to document or specify PCP for Service Provider networks.

If there are any other people on the list interested on working on such
document, please send me a message.

Thanks,

Reinaldo


On 11/3/11 1:00 PM, "Dave Thaler" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Reinaldo Penno writes:
>> Separation of subscriber management interfaces from NAT/PCP and use VRFs
>> are common practice in CGN deployments.
>> 
>> Such deployments and strategy are discussed in multiple draft related to
>> IPv4/IPv6 co-existence and transition. A few references.
>> 
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kuarsingh-lsn-deployment-05
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-gateway-init-ds-lite-05
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6342
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-3gpp-eps-08
>> 
>> The charter talks about CGNs but given the recent thread a clarification is
>> needed if PCP protocol should be appropriately specified so it can work on
>> wireless/wireline service provider networks as described above.
>> 
>> Can the chairs please clarify the scope of PCP?
>> 
>> If such network architectures are in scope will this be part of the base spec
>> or
>> can we have a new deliverable on the charter?
> 
> The charter says:
> "The PCP working group is chartered to standardize a client/server Port
>  Control Protocol (PCP) to enable an explicit dialog with a middlebox
>  such as a NAT or a firewall to open up and/or forward TCP or UDP port,
>  regardless of the location of that middlebox."
> 
> In my view the "regardless of the location of that middlebox" means all
> topologies
> are in scope for discussion for the WG.   That doesn't mean the WG has to
> support all possible topologies, if consensus is to constrain them in some
> way.
> It also doesn't imply that the base PCP spec itself has to support all
> topologies 
> itself, that's a WG decision.   If the WG chooses to put extensions to support
> certain topologies in a separate document, the WG could do so.   We already
> have
> WG consensus to do that for DS-lite topologies.
> 
> -Dave