Re: [pcp] WG Call for Adoption: draft-tsou-pcp-natcoord-09

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Qiong [mailto:bingxuere@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2013 5:27 AM
> To: Dan Wing
> Cc: Simon Perreault; pcp@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [pcp] WG Call for Adoption: draft-tsou-pcp-natcoord-09
> 
> Dear Dan,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 	Another question:  what is the relationship between draft-tsou-pcp-
> natcoord
> 	and draft-sun-dhc-port-set-option and draft-wu-dhc-port-set-option?
> I
> 	saw there was a request to adopt draft-sun-dhc-port-set-option in
> DHC,
> 	and lots of discussion.
> 
> 	I have not seen a discussion of using DHCP versus PCP for this
> 	functionality, which concluded that PCP was the better choice.  Did
> 	that discussion occur?  If so, can we get a pointer to that
> 	discussion?
> 
> 
> [Qiong] For the relationship between draft-tsou-pcp-natcoord, draft-sun-
> dhc-port-set-option and draft-wu-dhc-port-set-option, draft-tsou-pcp-
> natcoord is a port-set extension for pcp-base and draft-sun-dhc-port-
> set-option(updated version of draft-wu-dhc-port-set-option ) is a port-
> set extension on dhcpv4. Both draft-tsou-pcp-natcoord and draft-sun-dhc-
> port-set-option can work with lightweight 4over6, but draft-tsou-pcp-
> natcoord is not only designed for lw4over6 use case. It can also be used
> for other cases like Reinaldo's firewall, SLNAT44, application-based
> port-set reservation, etc.
> 
> 
> For lw4over6 use case, we do have a discussion of using DHCP or PCP
> among lw4over6 co-authors (no much discussion in the mailing-list). But
> it's truely hard to say which one is better. Different operators will
> have different situations. For example, for operators with existing DHCP
> server and is not planning to deploy CGN, they may prefer dhcp solution;
> while for operators with no existing DHCP server and will deploy CGN in
> the early stage, they may prefer pcp solution. So it is really a
> deployment choice for them.

We all know the industry is best served with a single standard, 
rather than multiple standards (both a PCP mechanism and a DHCP 
mechanism).  Too many choices is actually harmful, rather than
helpful.

I would really like to see the need for both PCP and DHCP before either
working group adopts a mechanism.  If we don't do that now, the
same question is likely to arise when during IETF last call or during
IESG review.

-d

> 
> Hope it clarifies.
> 
> 
> Best wishes
> 
> Qiong
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   first
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 	-d
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 	_______________________________________________
> 	pcp mailing list
> 	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/
> ===============================================
> 