IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [pcp] DS-Lite "plain mode" (Was: Re: draft-ietf-pcp-proxy and draft-cheshire-recursive-pcp)

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Fri, 26 July 2013 09:28 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.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 A882621F8C72 for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 02:28:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.248
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.248 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
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 9zB4urn+L+X6 for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 02:28:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias92.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.92]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8298621F8A50 for <pcp@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 02:28:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omfedm07.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.3]) by omfedm14.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id BD21422D6A7; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 11:28:34 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from PUEXCH41.nanterre.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.101.44.30]) by omfedm07.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 9FAD04C024; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 11:28:34 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.12]) by PUEXCH41.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.30]) with mapi; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 11:28:34 +0200
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
To: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>, "pcp@ietf.org" <pcp@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 11:28:32 +0200
Thread-Topic: [pcp] DS-Lite "plain mode" (Was: Re: draft-ietf-pcp-proxy and draft-cheshire-recursive-pcp)
Thread-Index: Ac6J2Qrutdy36aI2TviddCNSCfQLUQAAQKJg
Message-ID: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36EE6E83222@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
References: <09D9F37E-8339-412C-B703-4DBC9A96696A@cisco.com> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36EE4BA569B@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <10106ED6-5FF5-4C03-8F2E-8AFCE2D0812A@cisco.com> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36EE6E83194@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <51F23156.1040104@viagenie.ca>
In-Reply-To: <51F23156.1040104@viagenie.ca>
Accept-Language: fr-FR
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: fr-FR
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-PMX-Version: 5.6.1.2065439, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2013.6.28.101520
Subject: Re: [pcp] DS-Lite "plain mode" (Was: Re: draft-ietf-pcp-proxy and draft-cheshire-recursive-pcp)
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: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 09:28:40 -0000

Hi Simon,

You can find some justification in the DS-Lite draft (see the appendix).

I recall there were discussions in the list and some interim meeting but I failed where the decision was formally made. BTW, it is hard to find pcp meeting minutes :-(

Cheers,
Med   

>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : pcp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcp-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Simon
>Perreault
>Envoyé : vendredi 26 juillet 2013 10:21
>À : pcp@ietf.org
>Objet : [pcp] DS-Lite "plain mode" (Was: Re: draft-ietf-pcp-proxy and
>draft-cheshire-recursive-pcp)
>
>Le 2013-07-26 10:05, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com a écrit :
>>> Why can't IPv4 PCP requests be sent over IPv4 (over the DS-Lite IPv6
>>> tunnel), just like a IPv4 TCP SYNs?
>>
>> [Med] The plain mode is what is implemented in most platforms I'm aware
>of, and it is the mode adopted by the WG.
>
>Why did the WG adopt this method in the first place? Why did those
>platforms do it that way? There must be a reason...
>
>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