Re: [pcp] PCP in Service Provider Networks - (was Re: Comments on draft-cheshire-pcp-recovery-02)

[Dave Thaler <[e-mail]>]

Reinaldo Penno writes:
> Separation of subscriber management interfaces from NAT/PCP and use VRFs
> are common practice in CGN deployments.
> 
> Such deployments and strategy are discussed in multiple draft related to
> IPv4/IPv6 co-existence and transition. A few references.
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kuarsingh-lsn-deployment-05
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-gateway-init-ds-lite-05
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6342
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-3gpp-eps-08
> 
> The charter talks about CGNs but given the recent thread a clarification is
> needed if PCP protocol should be appropriately specified so it can work on
> wireless/wireline service provider networks as described above.
> 
> Can the chairs please clarify the scope of PCP?
> 
> If such network architectures are in scope will this be part of the base spec or
> can we have a new deliverable on the charter?

The charter says:
"The PCP working group is chartered to standardize a client/server Port
 Control Protocol (PCP) to enable an explicit dialog with a middlebox
 such as a NAT or a firewall to open up and/or forward TCP or UDP port,
 regardless of the location of that middlebox."

In my view the "regardless of the location of that middlebox" means all topologies
are in scope for discussion for the WG.   That doesn't mean the WG has to
support all possible topologies, if consensus is to constrain them in some way.
It also doesn't imply that the base PCP spec itself has to support all topologies 
itself, that's a WG decision.   If the WG chooses to put extensions to support 
certain topologies in a separate document, the WG could do so.   We already have
WG consensus to do that for DS-lite topologies.

-Dave