[pcp] The parity bit in PORT_SET
Jean-Philippe Dionne <jean-philippe.dionne@viagenie.ca> Thu, 14 March 2013 20:43 UTC
Return-Path: <jean-philippe.dionne@viagenie.ca>
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 AF0D311E80F2 for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:43:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 qgdjoGTglCBV for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:43:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (jazz.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B5CE21F90CB for <pcp@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:43:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-152b.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-152b.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.21.43]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A96E3469F3 for <pcp@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:43:25 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <51423670.80403@viagenie.ca>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:43:28 -0400
From: Jean-Philippe Dionne <jean-philippe.dionne@viagenie.ca>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130216 Thunderbird/17.0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "pcp@ietf.org" <pcp@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [pcp] The parity bit in PORT_SET
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: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 20:43:26 -0000
Hi, I do not think the parity bit is useful in the PORT_SET option. pcp clients that will use PORT_SET and doesn't know if they need parity or not, will simply always set this bit to 1. The parity bit can be removed from the PORT_SET option if we requires the NAT to preserve mapping for any PCP request (or by being more conservative, request with PORT_SET option only). Jean-Philippe
- [pcp] The parity bit in PORT_SET Jean-Philippe Dionne
- Re: [pcp] The parity bit in PORT_SET mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [pcp] The parity bit in PORT_SET Jean-Philippe Dionne