IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Wed, 12 September 2012 05:20 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 9BA2321E8082 for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 22:20:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.184
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.184 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.064, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, 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 h9WXawdY-oLa for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 22:20:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias91.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.91]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E79621E8064 for <pcp@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 22:20:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omfedm07.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.3]) by omfedm13.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 1D64C324538; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 07:20:56 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from PUEXCH71.nanterre.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.101.44.33]) by omfedm07.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 02CE84C027; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 07:20:56 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.9]) by PUEXCH71.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.33]) with mapi; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 07:20:51 +0200
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
To: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>, Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 07:20:49 +0200
Thread-Topic: [pcp] PREFIX64 PCP Option for NAT64: draft-boucadair-pcp-nat64-prefix64-option
Thread-Index: Ac2QQKPFgvBkc+cXSMeqKN1bVU5WqAAZVIjQ
Message-ID: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E5A10C1B0@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> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E5A10BF57@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <074001cd903f$ffc7b570$ff572050$@com> <504F7105.6010108@viagenie.ca>
In-Reply-To: <504F7105.6010108@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: 2012.9.12.40324
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: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 05:20:58 -0000

Hi Simon,

You are right. There is no need to wait. Another order to issue the requests can be used in the flow examples. 

I added a note to the draft.

Cheers,
Med


>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : Simon Perreault [mailto:simon.perreault@viagenie.ca] 
>Envoyé : mardi 11 septembre 2012 19:13
>À : Dan Wing
>Cc : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP; pcp@ietf.org
>Objet : Re: [pcp] PREFIX64 PCP Option for NAT64: 
>draft-boucadair-pcp-nat64-prefix64-option
>
>Le 2012-09-11 13:08, Dan Wing a écrit :
>> The message flow for the new PCP Opcode implies there is always
>> an additional round trip.  There is only an additional round-trip
>> if MAP (or PEER) is used.  If, on the other hand, the host only
>> needed to learn the NAT64 prefix (and then it set up a TCP
>> connection), the number of messages on the network is exactly
>> the same for the MAP option or the new Opcode, assuming the PCP
>> client simply leaves the dangling MAP-created mapping until its
>> Lifetime expires.
>
>Can't the two opcodes be sent simultaneously? No need to wait for one 
>request to finish before starting another one...
>
>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