Re: [pcp] #63: Handling multiple prefixes

["Senthil Sivakumar (ssenthil)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Med,
Can you please revise the first sentence as
"The PCP server is required to disambiguate", the rest of the text
clarifies the questions that I had.

Thanks
Senthil

On 6/5/13 4:21 AM, "[e-mail]"
<[e-mail]> wrote:

>Hi Senthil,
>
>You can find this text in the new version available at:
>http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-pcp-nat64-prefix64-03.txt
>
>The PCP server is supposed to be able to disambiguate
>      prefixes used for IPv6 address synthesis and other prefixes used
>      to avoid any NAT64 deployed in the network.  The PCP server can be
>      configured with a customized IPv6 prefix list (i.e., specific to a
>      PCP client or a group of PCP clients) or system-wise IPv6 prefix
>      list (i.e., the same list is return for any PCP client).
>
>
>Please let me know if this text answers your two question.
>
>Cheers,
>Med
>
>>-----Message d'origine-----
>>De : Senthil Sivakumar (ssenthil) [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>Envoyé : mardi 4 juin 2013 21:07
>>À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/OLN; pcp issue tracker; draft-ietf-pcp-nat64-
>>[e-mail]
>>Cc : [e-mail]
>>Objet : Re: [pcp] #63: Handling multiple prefixes
>>
>>Hi Med,
>>
>>On 6/4/13 5:39 AM, "[e-mail]"
>><[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>>Hi Senthil,
>>>
>>>Thank you for the review.
>>>
>>>The current text says the following:
>>>
>>>   When multiple prefixes are configured in a network, the PCP server
>>>   MAY be configured to return multiple PREFIX64 options in the same
>>>   message to the PCP client.  The PCP server includes in the first
>>>   PREFIX64 option, which appears in the PCP message it sends to the PCP
>>>   client, the prefix to perform local IPv6 address synthesis [RFC6052].
>>>   Remaining PREFIX64 options convey any other Pref64::/n values
>>>   configured . Returning these prefixes allows an end host to identify
>>>   them as translated addresses, and instead prefer IPv4 or an
>>>   alternative network interface in order to avoid any NAT64 deployed in
>>>   the network.
>>>
>>>Doesn't this text solves your concern? Or you think more elaboration is
>>>needed?
>>
>>I have two questions/comments about this text.
>>1. How should the server order these prefixes?
>>2.How does the server know which prefix should be the first prefix handed
>>to the requesting client?
>>
>>Thanks
>>Senthil
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>>Med
>>>
>>>
>>>>-----Message d'origine-----
>>>>De : pcp issue tracker [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>>Envoyé : samedi 1 juin 2013 00:54
>>>>À : [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>>>>Cc : [e-mail]
>>>>Objet : [pcp] #63: Handling multiple prefixes
>>>>
>>>>#63: Handling multiple prefixes
>>>>
>>>> The only comment I have is this document doesn't address the multiple
>>>> prefixes that could be present on a NAT64 device.
>>>> Any guidelines on which prefix should be reported would be useful.
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>-------------------------------------+---------------------------------
>>>>--
>>>>--
>>>> Reporter:  Senthil Sivakumar        |      Owner:  draft-ietf-pcp-
>>>>  (ssenthil) <[e-mail]>    |  [e-mail]
>>>>     Type:  defect                   |     Status:  new
>>>> Priority:  major                    |  Milestone:
>>>>Component:  nat64-prefix64           |    Version:
>>>> Severity:  -                        |   Keywords:
>>>>-------------------------------------+---------------------------------
>>>>--
>>>>--
>>>>
>>>>Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/pcp/trac/ticket/63>
>>>>pcp <http://tools.ietf.org/pcp/>
>>>
>