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

[Alain Durand <[e-mail]>]

I do not support the adoption of this document as wg item, for essentially three reasons.

1) This functionality can be achieved very simply on a CPE by sending multiple PCP requests.
     This would remove the complexity of port set indexes, max port set, etc...

2) There are already several DHCP (v4 and v6) options being defined to address this very problem,
     and my understanding is that there is an attempt at converging those in DHC & Softwires.
     If a PCP option absolutely must be defined as well (which honestly I doubt), I would hope
     it would be defined exactly the same way as the yet-to-be-defined final DHCP option.

3) When asking for multiple of those port-sets, one may end-up with port sets on different
     external IP addresses. Also, when ports are running low, connections may be delayed until a new port set is acquired.
    There are problems associated with these scenarii and they should be analyzed.

    In the end, there is a trade-off between flexibility and complexity. The question
    is, in REAL operation, is the flexibility of having multiple port sets needed?
    In CGN deployments I'm familiar with, ISPs assign a fixed amount of ports per user that should be
    enough for everybody and don't change it. If this is not good enough for a particular user,
    the simplest thing to do is to take him/her out of the CGN pool and assign him/her a full IPv4 address.
    In other words, I think that this notion of  handing out multiple port sets with pseudo-random ports
    is vastly over engineered.

Alain.




On Jan 2, 2013, at 6:34 PM, Reinaldo Penno (repenno) <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> This email starts a 2-week consensus call on adopting
> 
>     Title     : Using PCP To Coordinate Between the CGN and Home Gateway
>     Author(s) : Q. Sun et al
>     Filename  : draft-tsou-pcp-natcoord-09.txt
>     URL       : http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-tsou-pcp-natcoord-09.txt
> 
> 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 16th January 2013.
> 
> Thanks,
>