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

Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca> Thu, 06 September 2012 15:28 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 6186B21F8722 for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 08:28:41 -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 7grHlrw21uqg for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 08:28:41 -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 E1B8721F86FA for <pcp@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 08:28:40 -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 4C8C3415C2; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 11:28:40 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <5048C127.50704@viagenie.ca>
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 11:28:39 -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: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
References: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E57B08381@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <504898BD.7000702@viagenie.ca> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E57B08524@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <5048AC63.50700@viagenie.ca> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E57B085C5@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
In-Reply-To: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E57B085C5@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: "pcp@ietf.org" <pcp@ietf.org>
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 15:28:41 -0000

Le 2012-09-06 11:04, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com a écrit :
> Med: I'm open to evaluate which approach is better: new opcode vs.
> new option. We need first to agree this is valid problem to solve.

There is clearly a need to discover the NAT64 prefix:
draft-ietf-behave-nat64-learn-analysis
draft-ietf-behave-nat64-discovery-heuristic

Note that the analysis draft does not consider PCP. Maybe it should. 
Looking at the list of pros and cons for DHCPv6, PCP would be different, 
and better in some aspects.

Personally I would much prefer using PCP than the heuristic when PCP is 
available.

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