Re: [pcp] WGLC: draft-ietf-pcp-anycast-02 comments due by NOV 10

Sebastian Kiesel <ietf-pcp@skiesel.de> Thu, 30 October 2014 22:23 UTC

Return-Path: <sebi@gw01.ehlo.wurstkaes.de>
X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FF221A873A for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 15:23:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.56
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.56 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i1nJCk60YHtl for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 15:23:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gw01.ehlo.wurstkaes.de (gw01.ehlo.wurstkaes.de [IPv6:2a02:a00:e000:116::41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B13B81A8720 for <pcp@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 15:23:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sebi by gw01.ehlo.wurstkaes.de with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <sebi@gw01.ehlo.wurstkaes.de>) id 1Xjy87-0001Vy-Kd; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 23:23:43 +0100
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 23:23:43 +0100
From: Sebastian Kiesel <ietf-pcp@skiesel.de>
To: Simon Perreault <sperreault@jive.com>
Message-ID: <20141030222343.GD5297@gw01.ehlo.wurstkaes.de>
References: <0d54be2504534facaaaddfb275ba982d@BY2PR03MB412.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93301C2474@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <20141030111132.GC5297@gw01.ehlo.wurstkaes.de> <CANO7kWATnxjaMh+SaMphZHYzEDKVMzB3SWqfntJrU1MwvGzQVA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CANO7kWATnxjaMh+SaMphZHYzEDKVMzB3SWqfntJrU1MwvGzQVA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Languages: en, de
Organization: my personal mail account
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pcp/bTA9QeHx33MTh0ibBjzLORQzIx4
Cc: "pcp@ietf.org" <pcp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [pcp] WGLC: draft-ietf-pcp-anycast-02 comments due by NOV 10
X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 22:23:51 -0000

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 09:12:01AM -0400, Simon Perreault wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 7:11 AM, Sebastian Kiesel <ietf-pcp@skiesel.de>
> wrote:
> 
> > What we want to say is:  Whatever address family you decide to use on
> > your side of the NAT for the actual user data traffic, you should use
> > the same address family for the related PCP anycast signaling to the
> > NAT.  It doesn't matter whether the NAT will translate the user data
> > traffic to the same or another address family on its other side.
> >
> > If a host is not dual stack, i.e., IPv4-only or IPv6-only, it has no
> > other choice than sending both the user data and the PCP anycast
> > signaling using the one address family it supports.
> > This is completely fine and inline with this requirement.
> >
> > Does this make sense?
> >
> 
> Yes,

ok. so we agree what to say, now let's see how ...


> and it is specified by draft-ietf-pcp-server-selection. I agree with
> Mohamed that this guidance is redundant and should be replaced by a pointer
> to that draft.

I'm not sure whether it is really helpful to eliminate a tiny bit
of redundancy by referencing a much more generic other document, which
in turn references further documents.

What would be the text proposal for that change?

Old:

   The PCP client SHOULD select the PCP anycast address to be of the
   same IP address family as its requested PCP mapping, i.e., the
   address family of the Requested Internal IP Address.

New:

   The PCP client selects the IP address family as specified
   in [draft-ietf-pcp-server-selection].


What do you think?


Thanks
Sebastian