Re: [pcp] Will PCP do it?

"Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> Wed, 09 March 2011 23:36 UTC

Return-Path: <dwing@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: pcp@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pcp@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC24A3A6AD9 for <pcp@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Mar 2011 15:36:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.405
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.405 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.194, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wghFOrh76DTV for <pcp@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Mar 2011 15:36:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BB803A6A59 for <pcp@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Mar 2011 15:36:29 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=dwing@cisco.com; l=4508; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1299713866; x=1300923466; h=from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=LY46Mc0NPnI+3WShF/l7HN9JV4QFw6DAx4XBRc2MetA=; b=ALohbLBxYYDB0khbXzDowx1lwVb8xTmcHuMbedX7bmYlO/nZH7N1QQ/4 mqV/bVhNQZcPCgyDchw9Xvf5WFRdY6NF34vH02o0mhix63dAi3DdgafT1 8zk39XAEii9YOz/41zbmstORAA6sp4yCMerAwQa5jkUK3I6w230HvDoIh 4=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvgAAOqdd02rRN+K/2dsb2JhbACYRYFljEh0pnScNYVlBIUi
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.62,292,1297036800"; d="scan'208";a="343342014"
Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.223.138]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Mar 2011 23:37:46 +0000
Received: from dwingWS ([10.32.240.195]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p29NbkFe029293; Wed, 9 Mar 2011 23:37:46 GMT
From: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
To: 'Tina Tsou' <tena@huawei.com>, pcp@ietf.org
References: <6D908227-5221-4336-B6C3-530BFB474DE7@huawei.com> <1fd001cbde91$0f065ad0$2d131070$@com> <004701cbde93$7fe9d220$7fbd7660$@com> <202701cbde95$65763490$30629db0$@com> <007401cbde9f$ff965640$fec302c0$@com>
In-Reply-To: <007401cbde9f$ff965640$fec302c0$@com>
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 15:37:46 -0800
Message-ID: <218301cbdeb2$feb60dc0$fc222940$@com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AcvdpoZwOsT1DlT/QIS2xgo2/SS1rQA6oLVAAACPNTAAADLKMAAC72MgAATJM7A=
Content-Language: en-us
Subject: Re: [pcp] Will PCP do it?
X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: PCP wg discussion list <pcp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 23:36:31 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tina Tsou [mailto:tena@huawei.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 1:22 PM
> To: 'Dan Wing'; pcp@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [pcp] Will PCP do it?
> 
> It is not related to source-trace.

I am out of guesses.

What is the use case?

-d


> 
> We keep our promises with one another - no matter what!
> 
> Best Regards,
> Tina TSOU
> http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Wing [mailto:dwing@cisco.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 12:06 PM
> To: 'Tina Tsou'; pcp@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [pcp] Will PCP do it?
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tina Tsou [mailto:tena@huawei.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 11:52 AM
> > To: 'Dan Wing'; pcp@ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: [pcp] Will PCP do it?
> >
> > My understanding about PCP is that it allows the PCP client to
> instruct
> > the
> > PCP server to allocate a port number with a transport protocol
> > (pinhole) so
> > that the PCP client can send the NAT's public IP address, transport
> > protocol
> > and port number to the application server outside the NAT to allow
> that
> > application server to send information to the device with the PCP
> > client.
> 
> Yes, that covers two of the use-cases described in draft-ietf-pcp-base,
> " Operating a Server" (Section 7.1) and "Operating a Symmetric
> Client/Server" (Section 7.3).
> 
> > A PCP client already has the public IP address, transport port
> protocol
> > and
> > port number  What I described does not involve the device behind the
> > NAT but
> > another entity that is interested in knowing which private IP address
> > is
> > assigned with a specific port number for a transport protocol and
> NAT's
> > public IP address.  Is it in your opinion that PCP can be enhanced to
> > support this type of inquiry? Just ask.
> 
> It could be.  I'm asked "what is the use case" to understand why
> you're wanting this functionality.
> 
> > If not, I will go for another
> > candidate protocol.
> >
> > In the mobile operator network, two interfaces are needed if mobile
> GW
> > and
> > NAT are separate:
> > 1. with NAT: request contains the NAT's public IP address, transport
> > protocol and port number; response contains the private IP address
> and
> > the
> > port number.
> > 2. with mobile GW: request contains the private IP address and
> response
> > contains the mobile identities (e.g. IMSI, MSISDN, etc.)
> >
> > If the mobile GW is integrated with the NAT, one interface is needed.
> > The
> > request contains the mobile GW's/NAT's public IP address, transport
> > protocol
> > and port number, and the response contains the mobile identities.
> 
> Sorry, I still don't understand the use case.
> 
> Is the use case to allow an external entity to perform user
> identification,
> akin to draft-chen-intarea-v4-uid-header-option or
> draft-zhang-v6ops-cgn-source-trace or draft-wing-nat-reveal-option ??
> 
> -d
> 
> 
> > We keep our promises with one another - no matter what!
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Tina TSOU
> > http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dan Wing [mailto:dwing@cisco.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 11:35 AM
> > To: 'Tina TSOU'; pcp@ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: [pcp] Will PCP do it?
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: pcp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of
> > > Tina TSOU
> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 7:36 AM
> > > To: pcp@ietf.org
> > > Subject: [pcp] Will PCP do it?
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > > NAT has the private IP address, transport protocol and port # on
> the
> > > "internal" side and the public IP address, transport protocol and
> > port
> > > # on the "external" side.  I'm looking for to allow an entity
> (e.g.,
> > > not the PCP client who uses PCP to request a port number assignment
> > on
> > > the "external" side) to know the private IP address on the
> "internal"
> > > side for the given public IP address, transport protocol and port #
> > on
> > > the "external" side.
> > > Will PCP do it?
> >
> > No.
> >
> > What is the use case?
> >
> > -d
> >
> >
> > >
> > > B. R.
> > > Tina
> > > http://tinatsou.weebly.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > pcp mailing list
> > > pcp@ietf.org
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp
>