Re: [pcp] pcp-base-19

[Tina TSOU <[e-mail]>]

Dan,
In line...

- Tina

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Wing [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 3:56 PM
To: Tina TSOU
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [pcp] pcp-base-19

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tina TSOU [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 3:06 PM
> To: Dan Wing
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [pcp] pcp-base-19
...
> 		2. P28, section 9
> 
> 
> 		"It is REQUIRED that the PCP-controlled device assign the
> same
> 		external IP address to PCP-created explicit dynamic
> mappings and to
> 		implicit dynamic mappings for a given Internal Address. In
> the absence
> 		of a PCP option indicating otherwise, it is REQUIRED that
> all
> 		PCP-created explicit dynamic mappings be assigned the same
> external
> 		IP address."
> 
> 
> 
> 		How about replace "In the absence of a PCP option
> indicating otherwise,
> 		it is REQUIRED that all PCP-created explicit dynamic
> mappings be
> 		assigned the same external IP address."
> 
> 		with
> 
> 		"It is indicated by the PCP client that PCP-created
> explicit dynamic
> 		mappings be assigned the same external IP address, unless
> there are
> 		explicit reasons of not doing so, e.g.
> 		http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-penno-pcp-zones-00"?
> 
> 
> 		Because "It is REQUIRED that the PCP" give the requirement
> from the
> 
> 
> 		server's point of view, I think we should also give the
> requirement
> 
> 
> 		from the client's point of view.
> 
> 
> 		This is more or less what Dan suggested before, perhaps an
> oversight.
> 
> 
> 
> 	I don't understand the nuance between the wording.  Can you give
> an
> 	example of what the existing text prohibits / breaks / disallows?
> 
> The existing text disallows client to request same external IP
> proactively.


The client can request the address it wants in the Suggested 
External Address field, which exists for both MAP and PEER.
[Tina: Excellent! So some descriptive text is needed here to describe these protocol operations before digging into the messages and fields.]

> You agreed my comments earlier before.

I recall a discussion on this previously, yes.  I don't recall any
definitive conclusion.  Here are pointers to the end of two
threads related to the previous discussion:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pcp/current/msg01632.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pcp/current/msg01627.html


If there was a definitive conclusion previously please provide 
a pointer and accept my apologies for my oversight.

[Tina:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pcp/current/msg01391.html
You said in Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 11:26:39 -0700
"I think see what you're wanting the document to say.  

How about this proposed text, instead:


  If there is already an active explicit dynamic mapping,
  it will be mapped to a certain external IP address.
  When the PCP client makes another explicit dynamic mapping,
  it SHOULD place the external IP address of the existing
  mapping into the Requested External Address of the MAP 
  request.  By doing this, all of the PCP client's explicit
  dynamic mappings will be on the same external address.


Does that say the same thing?

Is it acceptable?

-d"

I answer now "Yes, it is." Sorry for the very laaate answer from summer till X'mas. Merry X'mas!
]

-d

-d