IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [pcp] PREFIX64 PCP Option for NAT64: draft-boucadair-pcp-nat64-prefix64-option

"Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> Tue, 11 September 2012 17:08 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 AE59821F876A for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 10:08:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tvtqvHqdozzs for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 10:08:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mtv-iport-3.cisco.com (mtv-iport-3.cisco.com [173.36.130.14]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9ED121F8738 for <pcp@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 10:08:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2556; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1347383281; x=1348592881; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date: message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=qflSH7NthQuGSabdVaB0fV55I2GUxYqEDeL9OrrBGb4=; b=R4D6giEdKcITgm637nfVyfO0JyI0q21DU6A3vlbqJTU47pxlvkGq1wJJ 0GzPVyMV2N5VC+kWDgoj5gryRTmw7YnQ+Qx1pzMIQS6Xy/CtnYXoLiyoJ b4fY1CQFrqLMRYcq8IAkz4+AXy+rsmMI3vahySySOhlmiwu/NDAp07jtr E=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjMFADBvT1CrRDoI/2dsb2JhbABFq1mPeIEHgiABAQEDAQEBAQUKARQDRAsFBwEDAgkPAgQBASgHGQ4VCgkIAQEEARILF4doBQybI6BRixCGJgOIIDWFDokQjSKBZ4MG
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,406,1344211200"; d="scan'208";a="55355037"
Received: from mtv-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.58.8]) by mtv-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 Sep 2012 17:08:01 +0000
Received: from dwingWS ([10.32.240.196]) by mtv-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q8BH81am022652; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 17:08:01 GMT
From: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com, 'Simon Perreault' <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
References: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E57B08381@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <504898BD.7000702@viagenie.ca> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E57B08524@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <5048AC63.50700@viagenie.ca> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E57B085C5@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <5048C127.50704@viagenie.ca> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E5A10BF57@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
In-Reply-To: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E5A10BF57@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 10:08:00 -0700
Message-ID: <074001cd903f$ffc7b570$ff572050$@com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Ac2MREsThTb5jn5dQvm14yeG1MbvVgDvpJXwAA8wn6A=
Content-Language: en-us
Cc: pcp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [pcp] PREFIX64 PCP Option for NAT64: draft-boucadair-pcp-nat64-prefix64-option
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: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 17:08:02 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pcp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
> Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 2:53 AM
> To: Simon Perreault
> Cc: pcp@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [pcp] PREFIX64 PCP Option for NAT64: draft-boucadair-pcp-
> nat64-prefix64-option
> 
> Hi Simon,
> 
> I updated the draft with a new OpCode to retrieve the list of PREFIX64.
> The new version is available at:
>  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boucadair-pcp-nat64-prefix64-option-
> 01
> 
> The new version includes also some comments from Reddy.
> 
> Please feel free to comment the new version of the draft.

Thanks for the draft showing both choices.

The message flow for the new PCP Opcode implies there is always
an additional round trip.  There is only an additional round-trip
if MAP (or PEER) is used.  If, on the other hand, the host only
needed to learn the NAT64 prefix (and then it set up a TCP 
connection), the number of messages on the network is exactly
the same for the MAP option or the new Opcode, assuming the PCP
client simply leaves the dangling MAP-created mapping until its
Lifetime expires.

-d



> Cheers,
> Med
> 
> 
> >-----Message d'origine-----
> >De : Simon Perreault [mailto:simon.perreault@viagenie.ca]
> >Envoyé : jeudi 6 septembre 2012 17:29
> >À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP
> >Cc : pcp@ietf.org
> >Objet : Re: [pcp] PREFIX64 PCP Option for NAT64:
> >draft-boucadair-pcp-nat64-prefix64-option
> >
> >Le 2012-09-06 11:04, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com a écrit :
> >> Med: I'm open to evaluate which approach is better: new opcode vs.
> >> new option. We need first to agree this is valid problem to solve.
> >
> >There is clearly a need to discover the NAT64 prefix:
> >draft-ietf-behave-nat64-learn-analysis
> >draft-ietf-behave-nat64-discovery-heuristic
> >
> >Note that the analysis draft does not consider PCP. Maybe it should.
> >Looking at the list of pros and cons for DHCPv6, PCP would be
> >different,
> >and better in some aspects.
> >
> >Personally I would much prefer using PCP than the heuristic
> >when PCP is
> >available.
> >
> >Simon
> >--
> >DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
> >NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
> >STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca
> >
> _______________________________________________
> pcp mailing list
> pcp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email