Re: [pcp] PREFIX64 PCP Option for NAT64: draft-boucadair-pcp-nat64-prefix64-option

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Thu, 06 September 2012 15:04 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.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 CDCC521F8630 for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 08:04:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.248
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.248 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
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 NzohDkOTyZVt for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 08:04:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias92.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.92]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E57E121F8566 for <pcp@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 08:04:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omfedm08.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.4]) by omfedm10.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 82ABF26444C; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 17:04:18 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from PUEXCH61.nanterre.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.101.44.32]) by omfedm08.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 67A2323811E; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 17:04:18 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.12]) by PUEXCH61.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.32]) with mapi; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 17:04:16 +0200
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
To: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 17:04:15 +0200
Thread-Topic: [pcp] PREFIX64 PCP Option for NAT64: draft-boucadair-pcp-nat64-prefix64-option
Thread-Index: Ac2MN+pyip/7fC+xTfaMVl8xB0e06QABPrfQ
Message-ID: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E57B085C5@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
References: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E57B08381@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <504898BD.7000702@viagenie.ca> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E57B08524@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <5048AC63.50700@viagenie.ca>
In-Reply-To: <5048AC63.50700@viagenie.ca>
Accept-Language: fr-FR
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: fr-FR
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-PMX-Version: 5.6.1.2065439, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2012.9.6.104516
Cc: "pcp@ietf.org" <pcp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [pcp] PREFIX64 PCP Option for NAT64: draft-boucadair-pcp-nat64-prefix64-option
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: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 15:04:20 -0000

Re-,

Please see inline.

Cheers,
Med 

>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : Simon Perreault [mailto:simon.perreault@viagenie.ca] 
>Envoyé : jeudi 6 septembre 2012 16:00
>À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP
>Cc : pcp@ietf.org
>Objet : Re: [pcp] PREFIX64 PCP Option for NAT64: 
>draft-boucadair-pcp-nat64-prefix64-option
>
>Mohamed,
>
>Thanks for the very detailed answer! The background story is much 
>clearer to me now.
>
>Le 2012-09-06 09:20, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com a écrit :
>>> Consider a PCP client that receives a MAP response containing a
>>> PREFIX64 option. Does the option apply a) only to the mapping
>>> contained in the MAP response, or b) to all future mappings as
>>> well?
>>
>> Med: I'm tempted to say the prefix will be used for all mappings
>> associated with the same PCP server. A record to associate a PCP
>> server and a PREFIX64 should be maintained by the client. We need to
>> check if there are scenarios where the same PCP Server controls
>> NAT64s configured with distinct PREFIX64 servicing the same IPv6-only
>> host.
>
>I still have a problem with this. The problem is that the 
>PREFIX64 data 
>should not be associated with a MAP request because it is 
>global to the 
>server. Returning it as part of a MAP response makes no sense to me.

Med: I see it from a distinct perspective: return it in the MAP says to the PCP Client this is the prefix the NAT64 will use when translating received IPv4 packets matching the instantiated entry. The question whether we can extrapolate it to all mapping is a valid one. 

>
>Suggestion: why not create a new opcode for querying server-global 
>parameters? The PCP client would use this opcode once, get the 
>PREFIX64 
>data in the response, then would do MAP requests separately as 
>usual. I 
>think this would result in clearer semantics and implementations.

Med: I'm open to evaluate which approach is better: new opcode vs. new option. We need first to agree this is valid problem to solve.

>
>Simon
>-- 
>DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
>NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
>STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca
>