IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [pcp] WGLC: draft-ietf-pcp-anycast-02 comments due by NOV 10

Simon Perreault <sperreault@jive.com> Thu, 30 October 2014 13:12 UTC

Return-Path: <sperreault@jive.com>
X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B0421A0024 for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 06:12:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8wlfIv1dNAbU for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 06:12:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-f43.google.com (mail-la0-f43.google.com [209.85.215.43]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F3681AD1BA for <pcp@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 06:12:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-la0-f43.google.com with SMTP id ge10so4360903lab.2 for <pcp@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 06:12:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=5tutnyTq5iZ4ZuLsFYAcaabDomvo4/PJO4QW+pOrCAg=; b=Cwmcn1vouqutywNjOd+C09KtLD8YLQ8oLS1ENAJEtvaLzJ5ZATKHph8NDusR7DH5PW ZV9PyVJ32e4i26Rz9878kHuGk2C9qb2wz955QwSQkyQrKQxEiJe6+iN8g/eSo14xwOVv XuAGGqpc3a0K6yaRoRnqHpO9/wB8lrgrOHn68QaoOtuy7UltFPusZ8s8NVJck9EpRAwI OvYEUwuDItHJ6NLDas7BNe0BfPH0rlgBTPYl8fS6fZb2udj7Ul2ma8SWP7bG13nUXjdq TblhfPjQD3ySDmUWEv4RIwxKpeb/qRp60xI7SsjBs+sldeKOJRx/U5L26A4T8T9SCT/r G1QQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQndpPcYgmx7OQlvqzsG+DesGmjlpSaSedWFsINB/rFc2tFEOWWAqwmS0bBeEb8T2cz/uIpw
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.9.201 with SMTP id c9mr18645927lab.38.1414674721324; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 06:12:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.25.167.20 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 06:12:01 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20141030111132.GC5297@gw01.ehlo.wurstkaes.de>
References: <0d54be2504534facaaaddfb275ba982d@BY2PR03MB412.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93301C2474@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <20141030111132.GC5297@gw01.ehlo.wurstkaes.de>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 09:12:01 -0400
Message-ID: <CANO7kWATnxjaMh+SaMphZHYzEDKVMzB3SWqfntJrU1MwvGzQVA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Simon Perreault <sperreault@jive.com>
To: Sebastian Kiesel <ietf-pcp@skiesel.de>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1132f75e3cdbcf0506a3a05f"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pcp/qlO54vfJIRadMlHWAqGNWkvtYR8
Cc: "pcp@ietf.org" <pcp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [pcp] WGLC: draft-ietf-pcp-anycast-02 comments due by NOV 10
X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 13:12:18 -0000

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 7:11 AM, Sebastian Kiesel <ietf-pcp@skiesel.de>
wrote:

> What we want to say is:  Whatever address family you decide to use on
> your side of the NAT for the actual user data traffic, you should use
> the same address family for the related PCP anycast signaling to the
> NAT.  It doesn't matter whether the NAT will translate the user data
> traffic to the same or another address family on its other side.
>
> If a host is not dual stack, i.e., IPv4-only or IPv6-only, it has no
> other choice than sending both the user data and the PCP anycast
> signaling using the one address family it supports.
> This is completely fine and inline with this requirement.
>
> Does this make sense?
>

Yes, and it is specified by draft-ietf-pcp-server-selection. I agree with
Mohamed that this guidance is redundant and should be replaced by a pointer
to that draft.

Simon

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email