Re: [pcp] FW: New Version Notification for draft-rpcw-pcp-pmipv6-serv-discovery-01.txt

GangChen <phdgang@gmail.com> Wed, 17 October 2012 08:00 UTC

Return-Path: <phdgang@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 6E4CF21F85E7 for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 01:00:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.396
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.396 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.203, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 oQ7f9Q3Qq+cN for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 01:00:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vb0-f44.google.com (mail-vb0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5978F21F8593 for <pcp@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 01:00:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vb0-f44.google.com with SMTP id fc26so7820194vbb.31 for <pcp@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 01:00:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=jkkVCnwW+sBvTv+xhD2Z+0rYR5kTe6Nz41Xqayodbc4=; b=USbQUubuip28KaRGkffcooT3qG4FVoIRkGw99cG+8n3gFlv9ICUg1DdNKTMEWC/hT+ ODU8hXAUZJ4RLZC0nmVoEx60myI5whyer91IfTtaGDrqNGGVcuW/rj6PBZThVmZT0Q0q XeovpL+upeDgsT34m1K1/DuFARe7Suk9DLH6t2EviyAEe57AOzehkO8rM7bjaykPpgA7 KwylDS1orkQ/mLaNf9ZeW+3aj5mHlTh2qpNwGzdixVxZjGjIj2t85I411Q5TRgMCOnn8 o0WlQHKGamfZtMMONMAwLBD9249mUSezpm2VLYlLaok92yJj3rX2m3dO3yoq/2cAkSNp vGVQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.58.18.239 with SMTP id z15mr10100091ved.27.1350460841674; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 01:00:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.58.114.231 with HTTP; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 01:00:41 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CC7D1A42.1A591%praspati@cisco.com>
References: <CC7BA0C5.19FEA%praspati@cisco.com> <CC7D1A42.1A591%praspati@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 16:00:41 +0800
Message-ID: <CAM+vMESUm0y1KEib+Erw_r+wg710sheG5iu7bD9vE00qgWAJsg@mail.gmail.com>
From: GangChen <phdgang@gmail.com>
To: "Prashanth Patil (praspati)" <praspati@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: "pcp@ietf.org" <pcp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [pcp] FW: New Version Notification for draft-rpcw-pcp-pmipv6-serv-discovery-01.txt
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: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 08:00:43 -0000

Hello authors,

Few questions are below trying to make further clarifications.

1. I have a little confusion on the statement
"   If the dynamic outbound mapping is for the local access network then
   there are two cases to consider - In the first case where there is a
   nested NAT[I-D.penno-pcp-nested-nat], the mobile access gateway will
   function as both PCP server and PCP proxy forwarding the accepted PCP
   request to CGN PCP server.  In the second case, where there is no
   CGN, mobile access gateway will function as a PCP server in the local
   access network.
"
When the traffic is heading to the NAT in local access network, there
is no NAT processing in homenet. Wondering to know what is the case of
nested NAT you refer to?

2. What is the goal of designing mobility options? I read the Section
3, it seems a smart PCP proxy is sufficient to handle the traffic
dispatch? what the consideration to this option?


3. How do you handle the case of IPv6 offloading?

Best Regards

Gang


2012/9/17, Prashanth Patil (praspati) <praspati@cisco.com>:
> This is an updated version after accommodating review comments.
>
> Comments and suggestions welcome.
>
> -Prashanth
>
>
>
>>
>>On 31/08/12 8:53 PM, "internet-drafts@ietf.org" <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>A new version of I-D, draft-rpcw-pcp-pmipv6-serv-discovery-01.txt
>>>has been successfully submitted by Prashanth Patil and posted to the
>>>IETF repository.
>>>
>>>Filename:	 draft-rpcw-pcp-pmipv6-serv-discovery
>>>Revision:	 01
>>>Title:		 PCP Server Discovery with IPv4 traffic offload for Proxy Mobile
>>>IPv6
>>>Creation date:	 2012-08-31
>>>WG ID:		 Individual Submission
>>>Number of pages: 13
>>>URL:
>>>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rpcw-pcp-pmipv6-serv-discovery-
>>>0
>>>1.txt
>>>Status:
>>>http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rpcw-pcp-pmipv6-serv-discovery
>>>Htmlized:
>>>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rpcw-pcp-pmipv6-serv-discovery-01
>>>Diff:
>>>http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-rpcw-pcp-pmipv6-serv-discovery-01
>>>
>>>Abstract:
>>>   This document proposes a solution to PCP Server Discovery problems in
>>>   Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) networks when both home network traffic
>>>   and traffic off-loaded to local access network require traversing a
>>>   gateway implementing NAT and/or Firewall.  This draft proposes
>>>   enhancements to DHCPv4 Relay Agent by introducing a new sub-option
>>>   under DHCPv4 Relay Option and to PMIPv6 signaling through additional
>>>   options to Proxy Binding Update/Acknowledgement messages.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>The IETF Secretariat
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> pcp mailing list
> pcp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp
>