IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca> Mon, 07 January 2013 16:23 UTC

Return-Path: <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3EFC11E80AD for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jan 2013 08:23:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id STW+cLzzit1s for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jan 2013 08:23:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (jazz.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D38CF11E809C for <pcp@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jan 2013 08:23:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from porto.nomis80.org (85-169-40-152.rev.numericable.fr [85.169.40.152]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2816A4039E; Mon, 7 Jan 2013 11:23:45 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <50EAF690.4080505@viagenie.ca>
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:23:44 +0100
From: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Alain Durand <adurand@juniper.net>
References: <45A697A8FFD7CF48BCF2BE7E106F06041E9D48@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <82256834F867D44BBB8E49E40D5448BB065955DC@BL2PRD0510MB386.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <50EA9BF9.2010302@viagenie.ca> <82256834F867D44BBB8E49E40D5448BB065A432B@BL2PRD0510MB386.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <50EAF43F.1020701@viagenie.ca> <82256834F867D44BBB8E49E40D5448BB065A64F2@BL2PRD0510MB386.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <82256834F867D44BBB8E49E40D5448BB065A64F2@BL2PRD0510MB386.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: "<pcp@ietf.org>" <pcp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [pcp] WG Call for Adoption: draft-tsou-pcp-natcoord-09
X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Mon, 07 Jan 2013 16:23:47 -0000

Le 2013-01-07 17:19, Alain Durand a écrit :
>> There is no such difference. A MAP_PORT_SET request may be made either by an individual application or by the operating system, just like a MAP request.
>
> In theory, yes you are correct. In practice, it depends on the domain of application. If it is for lw4over6 (or similar), then the scenario I describe is the prevalent case.

Absolutely right. And I'd like to emphasize that we envision multiple 
usages for the MAP_PORT_SET opcode, one of which is indeed LW4o6.

Does this need to be clarified in the text?

Simon
-- 
DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email