IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca> Thu, 06 September 2012 12:36 UTC

Return-Path: <simon.perreault@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 BED0B21F852E for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 05:36:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 SpAT7YDPsPDJ for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 05:36:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (unknown [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000:226:55ff:fe57:14db]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53AAE21F8528 for <pcp@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 05:36:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from porto.nomis80.org (unknown [IPv6:2620:0:230:c000:c0c6:fcc8:f214:3951]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 69746415C2 for <pcp@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 08:36:14 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <504898BD.7000702@viagenie.ca>
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 08:36:13 -0400
From: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120828 Thunderbird/15.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: pcp@ietf.org
References: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E57B08381@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
In-Reply-To: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E57B08381@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 12:36:16 -0000

Interesting... I have a question:

Consider a PCP client that receives a MAP response containing a PREFIX64 
option. Does the option apply a) only to the mapping contained in the 
MAP response, or b) to all future mappings as well?

If a), how is PREFIX64 of any use to the client?

If b), why include it in a MAP response? Why not DHCP or something else? 
What happens if the client receives two MAP responses with conflicting 
PREFIX64 options? Does it have to check that?

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email