IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Fri, 07 September 2012 05:26 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
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 696EE21F84A0 for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 22:26:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.948
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.948 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_12=0.6, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 2y4F+G4MVNxs for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 22:26:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias92.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.92]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C49D21F849C for <pcp@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 22:26:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omfedm07.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.3]) by omfedm12.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id CE70F18C1FA; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 07:26:01 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from PUEXCH11.nanterre.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.101.44.27]) by omfedm07.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id B4FFC4C063; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 07:26:01 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.12]) by PUEXCH11.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.27]) with mapi; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 07:25:59 +0200
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
To: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 07:25:58 +0200
Thread-Topic: [pcp] PREFIX64 PCP Option for NAT64: draft-boucadair-pcp-nat64-prefix64-option
Thread-Index: Ac2MREsThTb5jn5dQvm14yeG1MbvVgAdLJUw
Message-ID: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E57B08650@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
References: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E57B08381@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <504898BD.7000702@viagenie.ca> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E57B08524@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <5048AC63.50700@viagenie.ca> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E57B085C5@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <5048C127.50704@viagenie.ca>
In-Reply-To: <5048C127.50704@viagenie.ca>
Accept-Language: fr-FR
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: fr-FR
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-PMX-Version: 5.6.1.2065439, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2012.9.7.43620
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: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 05:26:04 -0000

Hi Simon,

Perhaps it is too late to ask for including it in the analysis draft. 
I see another place where we can ask for including it is: 464xlat v6op draft. 

Cheers,
Med 

>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : Simon Perreault [mailto:simon.perreault@viagenie.ca] 
>Envoyé : jeudi 6 septembre 2012 17:29
>À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP
>Cc : pcp@ietf.org
>Objet : Re: [pcp] PREFIX64 PCP Option for NAT64: 
>draft-boucadair-pcp-nat64-prefix64-option
>
>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
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email