IETF Logo Mail Archive

[pcp] Lw4o6 or DS-Lite? (Re: WG Call for Adoption: The Port Control Protocol in Dual-Stack Lite environments)

"Reinaldo Penno (repenno)" <repenno@cisco.com> Tue, 21 May 2013 08:59 UTC

Return-Path: <repenno@cisco.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 3092121F97BF for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 May 2013 01:59:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qoduyHsK8B9M for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 May 2013 01:59:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AAB721F97C7 for <pcp@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 May 2013 01:59:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=7439; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1369126753; x=1370336353; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=wHWXBJH4d6Li2dFauUgeL6IqJxJdcRtO7lL+ERC0Uyo=; b=Kmc2Q/uKRyYEeERq6h3JMiOwOGosSn/4hcF6IQHHZapAHpNtQE3AZBnz eIxoCCSwuKFfpCiEVqntaWqw/ajxkdpWl37PQ5TpsijgLElCHSMmiKKI+ 5moGwPwyTDRYknbq0qCpByd19dDeRzvFojKryPfTW8ewpIDQwp6Iz8aYz A=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAGADs2m1GtJXG+/2dsb2JhbABZgkREMK9liTOGX4FbgQsWdIIfAQEBBAEBARpRCxIBGAEDAQILGQQoBgsUCQgCBA4FCIdzAw8Msn8NiFmMSoEVgREgDQQHgnNhA5VSgw+KdIUjgViBN4FxNQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.87,713,1363132800"; d="scan'208,217"; a="212810689"
Received: from rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com ([173.37.113.190]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 May 2013 08:59:12 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x14.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x14.cisco.com [173.36.12.88]) by rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r4L8x7gD006965 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 21 May 2013 08:59:07 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.8.77]) by xhc-aln-x14.cisco.com ([173.36.12.88]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 21 May 2013 03:59:07 -0500
From: "Reinaldo Penno (repenno)" <repenno@cisco.com>
To: Qiong <bingxuere@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: Lw4o6 or DS-Lite? (Re: [pcp] WG Call for Adoption: The Port Control Protocol in Dual-Stack Lite environments)
Thread-Index: AQHOVgFyeemzj62t2Uy2ljm7z0uTwQ==
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 08:59:06 +0000
Message-ID: <45A697A8FFD7CF48BCF2BE7E106F060409088AD5@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAH3bfADOqC-uw2G04-+6CORA=ng1RCup_wocpzMzJQLymy3z_w@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.13.0.110805
x-originating-ip: [10.86.242.165]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_45A697A8FFD7CF48BCF2BE7E106F060409088AD5xmbrcdx04ciscoc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "pcp@ietf.org" <pcp@ietf.org>
Subject: [pcp] Lw4o6 or DS-Lite? (Re: WG Call for Adoption: The Port Control Protocol in Dual-Stack Lite environments)
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: Tue, 21 May 2013 08:59:18 -0000

For those supporting this draft, are you thinking (or supporting) DS-Lite or actually Lw4o6?  I would like to make that distinction.

Because if you want this draft to work LW4o6 we need to understand changes and implications if any. I know, for example, the PORT SEt draft was originally targeted at Lw4o6, not DS-Lite.



From: Qiong <bingxuere@gmail.com<mailto:bingxuere@gmail.com>>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 16:54:19 +0800
To: Reinaldo Penno <repenno@cisco.com<mailto:repenno@cisco.com>>
Cc: "pcp@ietf.org<mailto:pcp@ietf.org>" <pcp@ietf.org<mailto:pcp@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [pcp] WG Call for Adoption: The Port Control Protocol in Dual-Stack Lite environments

Hi all,

I support the adoption.

This draft is good start, just have one comment:
I think the encapsulation mode is also very important when AFTR is deployed using anycast address and PCP server is co-located in AFTR. In encapsulation mode, it would be easy to guarantee that the same AFTR will be picked for both PCP traffic and subsequent data traffic. So I prefer to move encapsulation mode in the main body.

Best wishes
Qiong




On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 7:03 PM, Reinaldo Penno (repenno) <repenno@cisco.com<mailto:repenno@cisco.com>> wrote:
Hello,

This email starts a 2-week consensus call on adopting

     Title     : The Port Control Protocol in Dual-Stack Lite environments
     Author(s) : F. Dupont t al.
     URL       : http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dupont-pcp-dslite-05

Please read the current revision and state you opinion either for or
against adoption (and with reasoning why) in the mailing list.

The call for adoption ends 24th May 2013.

Thanks,

Reinaldo


_______________________________________________
pcp mailing list
pcp@ietf.org<mailto:pcp@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp



--
==============================================
Qiong Sun
China Telecom Beijing Research Institude


Open source code:
lightweight 4over6: http://sourceforge.net/projects/laft6/
PCP-natcoord: http://sourceforge.net/projects/pcpportsetdemo/
===============================================

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email