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

Qiong <bingxuere@gmail.com> Sat, 05 January 2013 08:33 UTC

Return-Path: <bingxuere@gmail.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 9D22521F87AD for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Jan 2013 00:33:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.926
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.926 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.072, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_32=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 RamDYtsf3C09 for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Jan 2013 00:33:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-f174.google.com (mail-ie0-f174.google.com [209.85.223.174]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CDAD21F8756 for <pcp@ietf.org>; Sat, 5 Jan 2013 00:33:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f174.google.com with SMTP id c11so20366305ieb.5 for <pcp@ietf.org>; Sat, 05 Jan 2013 00:33:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=SgQDLNKwNvKZ9g2dzsWTLePpmY1JPdJR0MQqWqXlHs8=; b=MCSRx2tFKsDDpAFKv+Q0DtXvpii+3F9YpoBFUe3Gl2d98Q5Id+FoF/Cd8Ec5aSTuzr ND02pWB167msB7j1/lDJhhYloCiV0mEEjxAqOLKb65fhyzKmRFvDI5GP6a8pYpwPtRzf XRpgT4PG7xgzj3LW6erQcCMAjZKPv+Z4l3k26DPqCweXhslIuOlqpPjyCa7JdDJC2sQ+ NinD7VHcBGd8wjYvRJBVRHuwxesMMCp1vZj9CmL/aj9gJrDTp2GsE7W38lv+GufyLwBw +r3rulf+h0E53uQc5U1JU6FvLLdAeSruXXXwXEACa2TTbe9a6cweGcuJbKkmATqGAsPQ g4tQ==
Received: by 10.50.161.130 with SMTP id xs2mr1112688igb.34.1357374827042; Sat, 05 Jan 2013 00:33:47 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.64.76.200 with HTTP; Sat, 5 Jan 2013 00:33:06 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <037201cdeae9$b4109e80$1c31db80$@cisco.com>
References: <45A697A8FFD7CF48BCF2BE7E106F06041E9D32@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <45A697A8FFD7CF48BCF2BE7E106F06041E9D48@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <01ab01cde953$1cbfed70$563fc850$@cisco.com> <CAH3bfAD+xumMtSWAm8bc_C-0FUBJZ_YXDJHwN9Xw0MNBnon=6w@mail.gmail.com> <037201cdeae9$b4109e80$1c31db80$@cisco.com>
From: Qiong <bingxuere@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2013 16:33:06 +0800
Message-ID: <CAH3bfAB9E44KXVqMMD=2KMSf3gOQTXNdUJRtHtp1WQV+6o0yVA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="14dae934106d6495aa04d2867487"
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: Sat, 05 Jan 2013 08:33:48 -0000

Dear Dan,

Let me explain the deployment senario of NATCOORD here.

The major functionality of NATCOORD is to get the External Port-Set and
External public address for the PCP client. It is applied to the senario
where NAT is offloaded to the home gateway and the PCP-controlled device
does not run NAT(or port-mapping). The home gateway will restrict the
source port into the external port-set, and therefore the PCP-controlled
device does not need to do port-mapping anymore. Currently, there are
several candidate solutions can work with it, including lightweight 4over6,
PRR, and SLNAT44.

NATCOORD does not work with ordinary CGN because there is no need for the
home gateway to get a range of ports if it does not do port restriction.

We will clarify it in the document. Thanks a lot for your consideration !

Best wishes
Qiong


On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com> wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Qiong [mailto:bingxuere@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 1:55 AM
> > To: Dan Wing
> > Cc: Reinaldo Penno (repenno); pcp@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [pcp] WG Call for Adoption: draft-tsou-pcp-natcoord-09
> >
> > Dear Dan,
> >
> >
> > Thanks for your comments. Please see inline ~~
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >       > -----Original Message-----
> >       > From: pcp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcp-bounces@ietf.org] On
> > Behalf Of
> >       > Reinaldo Penno (repenno)
> >       > Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 3:35 PM
> >       > To: pcp@ietf.org
> >       > Subject: [pcp] WG Call for Adoption: draft-tsou-pcp-natcoord-09
> >       >
> >
> >
> > [Qiong] Thanks for your suggestion. We will clarify it more clearly.
> > PCP_NATCOORD can not only work with draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-
> > lite, but can also work with PRR (either using internal IPv4 address, or
> > IPv6 address).
>
> Can it work with a CGN?
>

>
> > In the current draft, "the PCP server for MAP_PORT_SET
> > will not run NAT" because the home gateway will run NAT instead of PCP
> > server, but it would be easy to modify the draft to address the use
> > cases which Reinaldo has pointed out in http://www.ietf.org/mail-
> > archive/web/pcp/current/msg02664.html. The WG can decide which
> > applicabilities should go in it when we agree that we should start work
> > on this port-set Opcode.
>
> With the current document text, I cannot understand what sort of
> deployments where NATCOORD can or cannot be used.  Until I understand
> that, I can't decide if this document is a good idea or a bad idea.
>
> > For the title and content in section 1 and 2, we will take reconsider it
> > once the applicability of MAP_PORT_SET has been determined by the WG.
> >
> >
> >
> >       Nit: Figure 2 shows a 24 bit Reserved field, but the description
> >       says it is 16 bits.  Also, Figure 2 has a cut/paste mistake
> >       with Suggested Port Set Index (should be Assigned Port Set Index).
> >
> >
> > [Qiong] Thanks ! We will fix it.
> >
> >
> >
> >       What is the status of draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite in
> >       SOFTWIRE?
> >
> >
> > [Qiong] As far as I know, the concensus from the Atlanta meeting is that
> > draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite would be moved forward after
> > the softwire WG has a unified CPE draft covering both lightweight 4over6
> > and MAP.
>
> -d
>
> >
> >
> > Hope it clarifies. Thanks !
> >
> >
> > Best wishes
> > Qiong
> >
> >
> >
> >       -d
> >
> >
> >
> >       > The call for adoption ends 16th January 2013.
> >       >
> >       > Thanks,
> >       >
> >       >
> >       >
> >       >
> >       >
> >       >
> >       >
> >       > _______________________________________________
> >       > pcp mailing list
> >       > pcp@ietf.org
> >       > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp
> >
> >       _______________________________________________
> >       pcp mailing list
> >       pcp@ietf.org
> >       https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > ==============================================
> > Qiong Sun
> > China Telecom Beijing Research Institude
> >
> >
> > Open source code:
> > lightweight 4over6: http://sourceforge.net/projects/laft6/
> > PCP-natcoord: http://sourceforge.net/projects/pcpportsetdemo/
> > ===============================================
> >
>
>
>


-- 
==============================================
Qiong Sun
China Telecom Beijing Research Institude


Open source code:
lightweight 4over6: *http://sourceforge.net/projects/laft6/*
PCP-natcoord:* http://sourceforge.net/projects/pcpportsetdemo/ *
===============================================