Re: [pcp] last CGN requirements

[Simon Perreault <[e-mail]>]

On 2011-03-15 08:14, [e-mail] wrote:
> REQ-6 is an operational requirement which require more elaboration:
> e.g., how an address pool is defined?

We understand "address pool" to have the same meaning as in RFC 4787. Do
we need to add anything?

> Is there any hold-timer for the
> re-use of the address pool?

That could be something useful to add to the document. What do you propose?

> In draft-xu-behave-stateful-nat-standby-06, you may read this
> requirement which I would like see integrated in the CGN requirement
> I-D:
> 
> "Port forwarding entries SHOULD be stored in permanent storage 
> whatever the deployed redundancy mode."

I agree with the idea, but this needs work on terminology. "Port
forwarding entry" is not defined anywhere. We could say "static NAT
mappings", but then if they are static why do they need storing? If this
would only refer to PCP mappings then it is already covered by the PCP
document. Any idea on how we can solve this?

(But please let's continue this discussion on the behave mailing list.)

Thanks,
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