Re: [pcp] Fwd: Re: Martin Stiemerling's Discuss on draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

["Reinaldo Penno (repenno)" <[e-mail]>]

Humm...I'm not sure I agree.

"However, if a router does implement EGP it also MUST IMPLEMENT BGP."

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1812.txt

Or look at the requirements for IPv6 CEs or any other device that needs to
interoperate with others.


On 7/19/12 9:05 AM, "Hannes Tschofenig" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>I agree with Martin's remarks.
>
>On Jul 19, 2012, at 3:51 PM, Simon Perreault wrote:
>
>> Behaviers, PCPers,
>> 
>> During IESG review of draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements, a DISCUSS was
>>filed regarding the PCP requirement. Details below.
>> 
>> I think this DISCUSS needs to be discussed. So please discuss.
>> 
>> Please reply to [e-mail].
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Simon
>> 
>> 
>> -------- Message original --------
>> Sujet: Re: Martin Stiemerling's Discuss on
>>draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
>> Date : Thu, 19 Jul 2012 10:46:42 +0200
>> De : Martin Stiemerling <[e-mail]>
>> Pour : Simon Perreault <[e-mail]>
>> Copie à : The IESG <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>,
>><[e-mail]>
>> 
>> Hi Simon, all,
>> 
>> On 07/17/2012 11:11 PM, Simon Perreault wrote:
>>> Le 2012-07-17 16:42, Martin Stiemerling a écrit :
>>>>> Each and every CGN MUST have PCP and MUST follow the constraints.
>>>>>I'll
>>>>> fix the text in a later revision.
>>>> 
>>>> Can we mandate a specific protocol to be used for this or can we only
>>>> mandate that such a type of protocol is being used? I don't see the
>>>>IETF
>>>> in the position to mandate this type of protocol for CGNs.
>>>> 
>>>> There are other protocols out there which might be suitable. Note
>>>>that I
>>>> am co-author of some, but this isn't the reason for the question. I do
>>>> not get any reward if I promote these protocols.
>>>> 
>>>> It is more:
>>>> do we need to constrain CGN deployments to a protocol (PCP) which is
>>>> developed right now, or are we open to existing or future protocols,
>>>>or
>>>> whatever folks deploying this deem right?
>>>> 
>>>> I would propose to change REQ-9 to :
>>>> REQ-9: A CGN MUST include a middlebox control protocol that allows
>>>> manipulation of CGN bindings with the following contstraints <list
>>>>items
>>>> A and B>
>>>> REQ-9a: If PCP is used these contstraints MUST be applied in addition
>>>>to
>>>> contraints A and B:
>>>> <list items C and D>
>>> 
>>> That was discussed in IETF 81 (Québec). Here's the extract from the
>>> minutes:
>>> 
>>>           Stuart Cheshire: ietf has one port forwarding protocol, which
>>>           is PCP, so we should require it by name
>> 
>> There are multiple middlebox control protocols published by the IETF
>> (standards track and experimental) and I have not seen any call for
>> consensus on what **the** IETF's middlebox control is, neither I have
>> seen any RFC that states this.
>> 
>> I do not see that an individual can declare IETF consensus based on his
>> own opinion.
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>>           Dave Thaler: I agree. PCP doc is in final stages.
>> 
>> Again, an opinion of an individual. Nothing wrong about it, but it does
>> not state IETF consensus.
>> 
>>> 
>>> There was consensus from the WG. In consequence, the text was changed
>>> from this (-02):
>>> 
>>>             A CGN SHOULD support a port forwarding protocol such as the
>>>             Port Control Protocol [I-D.ietf-pcp-base].
>>> 
>>> to this (-03):
>>> 
>>>            A CGN SHOULD include a Port Control Protocol server
>>>            [I-D.ietf-pcp-base].
>>> 
>>> (That requirement later became a MUST, but that's orthogonal to what
>>> protocol we require.)
>> 
>> I do not see that the IETF can mandate what protocols are being used to
>> control a device. The market will decide!
>> 
>> For instance, the is no MUST required that routers implement BGP. It is
>> good to do this, but if one decides to go for IS-IS (or whatever) that
>> is just fine.
>> 
>> Another example, there is also no MUST requirement that routers, or
>> hosts in general, have to implement SNMP.
>> 
>> However, I can see the immediate need to mandate that a CGN SHOULD/MUST
>> support a middlebox control protocol that is able to install and
>> maintain NAT bindings.
>> 
>>  Martin
>> 
>> -- 
>> [e-mail]
>> 
>> NEC Laboratories Europe - Network Research Division NEC Europe Limited
>> Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL
>> Registered in England 283
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> pcp mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp
>
>_______________________________________________
>pcp mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp