[pcp] clarification on Axternal Address assignment [was RE: pcp-base-19]
"Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> Fri, 23 December 2011 19:01 UTC
Return-Path: <dwing@cisco.com>
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 039DC21F8548 for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Dec 2011 11:01:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TCNgtb6N5Z2X for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Dec 2011 11:01:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mtv-iport-4.cisco.com (mtv-iport-4.cisco.com [173.36.130.15]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BCB921F8545 for <pcp@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Dec 2011 11:01:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=dwing@cisco.com; l=6479; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1324666903; x=1325876503; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date: message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=u32a9olP7xaj8Z0p/+2P++7iGKSCyN/Z7/92M6J43ls=; b=jfr5GqQ4NinCUSL45+Ab9512wBVgDz+gLymVo/ku93BuI7Q9JEmKmFQD 8NudRUXqETMusBy+vrWQuQSKYjCimPartZExxcVUvGmPpbUnjaRXeXOrX Nga5B6z4Hz77FKToN0xLOJSUMJHOjm4SHfuHjZ+imrTSNxMAf34t+1X0Q I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApoAAJfP9E6rRDoG/2dsb2JhbABDm1qBao5zgQWBcgEBAQQICgEXED8MAQMCGAIDAQEBKAcZIwoJCAIEEwkCF4dgmS8BnhaMDwSIN4R5AZom
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,400,1320624000"; d="scan'208";a="22350594"
Received: from mtv-core-1.cisco.com ([171.68.58.6]) by mtv-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 23 Dec 2011 19:01:42 +0000
Received: from dwingWS ([10.89.15.206]) by mtv-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id pBNJ1fLT000804; Fri, 23 Dec 2011 19:01:41 GMT
From: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
To: 'Tina TSOU' <Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com>
References: <C0E0A32284495243BDE0AC8A066631A80C233F2F@szxeml526-mbx.china.huawei.com> <020201ccc033$b75e08c0$261a1a40$@com> <9E33FE0C-91D4-4440-AD18-13819470EEFF@huawei.com> <022201ccc03c$0a4226e0$1ec674a0$@com> <C0E0A32284495243BDE0AC8A066631A80C2377D8@szxeml526-mbx.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <C0E0A32284495243BDE0AC8A066631A80C2377D8@szxeml526-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 11:01:41 -0800
Message-ID: <068601ccc1a5$4eb65ac0$ec231040$@com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AQHMvshLlgQo2yg0SuKgPIbgmlIgJZXmCNUggACR36CAAEr20IAABvqqgAALjYCAAicg8IAAmfZQ
Content-Language: en-us
Cc: pcp@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pcp-base@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [pcp] clarification on Axternal Address assignment [was RE: pcp-base-19]
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: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 19:01:45 -0000
> -----Original Message----- > From: Tina TSOU [mailto:Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com] > Sent: Friday, December 23, 2011 12:52 AM > To: Dan Wing > Cc: pcp@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [pcp] pcp-base-19 > > Dan, > In line... > > - Tina > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Wing [mailto:dwing@cisco.com] > Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 3:56 PM > To: Tina TSOU > Cc: pcp@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [pcp] pcp-base-19 > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Tina TSOU [mailto:Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 3:06 PM > > To: Dan Wing > > Cc: pcp@ietf.org > > 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! > ] Ok, I think I understand now. My proposed text, above, isn't quite right, either (the last sentence of my proposed text is cannot be true, because no matter the value in Suggested External Address, the PCP server can ignore that value; it is only draft-penno-pcp-zones that changes that). Please review this change: OLD (contents of -19): 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. It is RECOMMENDED that static mappings for that Internal Address (e.g., those created by a command-line interface on the PCP server or PCP-controlled device) also be assigned to the same IP address. Once an Internal Address has no implicit dynamic mappings and no explicit dynamic mappings in the PCP-controlled device, a subsequent PCP request for that Internal Address MAY be assigned to a different External Address. Generally, this re-assignment would occur when a CGN device is load balancing newly-seen hosts to its public IPv4 address pool. NEW: The MAP and PEER requests include a Suggested External IP Address field. This field is a hint and ignored by the PCP-controlled device if there are other mappings for that Internal Address, unless there is an explicit Option in the request indicating otherwise (e.g., PREFER_FAILURE, [I-D.penno-pcp-zones]). For a PCP explicit dynamic mapping request for a given Internal Address, which does not contain an explicit Option to override the following behavior, the PCP-controlled device MUST assign the same External Address to that PCP-created explicit dynamic mapping and MUST assign it the same External Address as existing implicit dynamic mappings. Static mappings for that Internal Address (e.g., those created by a command-line interface on the PCP server or PCP-controlled device) SHOULD also be assigned to the same External Address. Once an Internal Address has no implicit dynamic mappings and no explicit dynamic mappings in the PCP-controlled device, a subsequent implicit or explicit mapping for that Internal Address MAY be assigned to a different External Address. Generally, this re-assignment would occur when a CGN device is load balancing newly-seen Internal Addresses to its public pool of External Addresses. -d
- Re: [pcp] pcp-base-19 Dan Wing
- [pcp] pcp-base-19 Dan Wing
- Re: [pcp] pcp-base-19 Tina TSOU
- Re: [pcp] pcp-base-19 Dan Wing
- Re: [pcp] pcp-base-19 Tina TSOU
- Re: [pcp] pcp-base-19 Tina TSOU
- Re: [pcp] pcp-base-19 Tina TSOU
- [pcp] clarification on Axternal Address assignmen… Dan Wing
- Re: [pcp] clarification on Axternal Address assig… Tina TSOU