IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [pcp] section 8

"Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> Mon, 17 October 2011 23:32 UTC

Return-Path: <dwing@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 9CDCA21F8A64 for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 16:32:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.191
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.191 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.408, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 Q-ziwIWiyeUL for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 16:32:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mtv-iport-2.cisco.com (mtv-iport-2.cisco.com [173.36.130.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18EBA21F8A58 for <pcp@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 16:32:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=dwing@cisco.com; l=2196; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1318894375; x=1320103975; h=from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=D/aXTAf2FjHujrcXG54TXXpiCbfTrlDzwBcbztDMpY8=; b=JrvHuObVfnGiwz8ovZJ5eP+S3NqudrJUZZJLRn0yhzEz6SXRQDKlYAba er3eYWJYA+EH+EMg6UTJKeErGSDo6n6jZsI2JS7cbaVFLQR6nS+0QclqH OIbIqKc04JYiwCD+Es4vvjyRTarEvXkLRUzgzWq2fIGbBBO6t+KeoZbFA U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqEAAEK6nE6rRDoG/2dsb2JhbABDmTKBbI05gQWBbgEBAQMBAQEBBQoBFxA0EAcBAwIJDwIEAQEoBxkOFQoJCAIEARILF4ddCJgWAZ56iAgEiAKdbA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.69,362,1315180800"; d="scan'208";a="8456500"
Received: from mtv-core-1.cisco.com ([171.68.58.6]) by mtv-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 Oct 2011 23:32:54 +0000
Received: from dwingWS ([10.32.240.197]) by mtv-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p9HNWsjL021584; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 23:32:54 GMT
From: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
To: 'Tina TSOU' <Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com>, pcp@ietf.org
References: <A6A061BEE5DDC94A9692D9D81AF776DF0AAEC289@szxeml527-mbs.china.huawei.com> <774B240D54DAB844B37EE80C2DD8E8BCB7E9DA@szxeml522-mbs.china.huawei.com> <A6A061BEE5DDC94A9692D9D81AF776DF0AAEC2F8@szxeml527-mbs.china.huawei.com> <A6A061BEE5DDC94A9692D9D81AF776DF0AAED40B@szxeml527-mbs.china.huawei.com> <C0E0A32284495243BDE0AC8A066631A80C19635B@szxeml526-mbx.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <C0E0A32284495243BDE0AC8A066631A80C19635B@szxeml526-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 16:32:54 -0700
Message-ID: <02d801cc8d25$183c8eb0$48b5ac10$@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: AQHMisd6AqbKitDQAEWxdFLEoPIx55WBNDag
Content-Language: en-us
Subject: Re: [pcp] section 8
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: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 23:32:55 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pcp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Tina TSOU
> Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 4:18 PM
> To: pcp@ietf.org
> Subject: [pcp] section 8
> 
> Hi,
> In section 8, it 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.  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."
> It is not consistent with what we have discussed in the mailing list
> below. And it is a bit ambiguous in reading.

The text allows draft-penno-pcp-zones, provided that draft-penno-pcp-zones
defines and a PCP option (which it does) and the PCP request uses 
that option (which is up to the PCP client, of course).

I don't see the ambiguity in the existing text.  What is the problem?

-d


> How about changing the second sentence from on of the 4 candidates as
> below?
>
> Alternative 1:
> PCP client should request same external IP address for an application
> if there is already any existing explicit mapping for that application.
> 
> Alternative 2:
> PCP client should request the same external IP address if there are
> existing explict mappings, unless there is explicit reasons of not
> doing so, e.g. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-penno-pcp-zones-00
> 
> Alternative 3:
> It is indicated by the PCP client that PCP-created explicit dynamic
> mappings be assigned the same external IP address, unless there are
> explicit reasons of not doing so, e.g.
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-penno-pcp-zones-00"
> 
> Alternative 4:
> It is indicated by the PCP client that PCP-created explicit dynamic
> mappings be assigned the same external IP address, unless a PCP option
> indicates different external IP address
> 
> 
> 
> Best Regards,
> Tina TSOU
> http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html
> _______________________________________________
> pcp mailing list
> pcp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email