Re: [pcp] WG Call for Adoption: draft-boucadair-pcp-nat64-prefix64-option

[<[e-mail]>]

Med,

Thank you for the pointer and extra justifications. Consider my concern cleared and hence I'm also positive for adoption.

Best regards,

        Teemu

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> ext [e-mail]
> Sent: 28. tammikuuta 2013 12:03
> To: Dave Thaler; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [pcp] WG Call for Adoption: draft-boucadair-pcp-nat64-prefix64-
> option
>
> Dear Dave,
>
> For your question about DHCP, I have already answered to this question
> here: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pcp/current/msg02258.html.
>
> Additional items in which PCP is superior to DHCP are:
>
> * Retrieving the information directly from the discovered PCP Server(s) is
> more flexible from an operational perspective: think about changing the
> PREFIX64 configured to a NAT64, for planned maintenance operations the
> traffic may be redirected to another NAT64 (can be achieved by using a
> distinct PREFIX64 for that backup NAT64), deployment of several NAT64 with
> distinct PREFIX64s, etc.
>
> * For organizations which adopt a two-level indirection (centralized DHCP
> server for generic configuration) and a regional team to operate regional
> portions of the network, the information about the PREFIX64 used in each
> regional area may not be available at the DHCP level.
>
> * Unlike DHCP, applications may embed a PCP Client (see for instance
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boucadair-pcp-nat64-experiments-
> 00#section-4.2)
>
> Cheers,
> Med
>
> >-----Message d'origine-----
> >De : [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de
> >Dave Thaler Envoyé : dimanche 27 janvier 2013 03:26 À : [e-mail]
> >Objet : Re: [pcp] WG Call for Adoption:
> >draft-boucadair-pcp-nat64-prefix64-option
> >
> >I have read the draft and the list discussion.
> >
> >I think there is need for a mechanism to explicitly learn the PREFIX64,
> >and indeed in the document shepherd writeup I did for
> >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-
> >behave-nat64-learn-analysis-03 I referred to this draft:
> >> The document specifies a heuristic that is not perfect and so some
> >> points were rough, but the constraint for this document was
> >to operate
> >> without changes to code (only configuration) in existing networks.
> >> Given that constraint, there was strong consensus.  Relaxing the
> >> constraint would allow one to do better, and that is the focus of a
> >> draft recently submitted to the PCP WG.
> >
> >So I do not think this draft should update or obsolete that one, as the
> >constraints are quite different.   That is, use an explicit
> >mechanism if supported,
> >else use the heuristic.
> >
> >I believe draft-boucadair-pcp-nat64-prefix64-option needs work but is a
> >decent starting point (for instance it should not keep both the Opcode
> >and the Option, and in my view the Option is better) should the PCP WG
> >take on this
> >work.   The biggest open question that would affect adoption
> >however is the
> >one Teemu raised in the email below:
> >" what is the benefit of defining PCP option instead of DHCPv6 option?"
> >After all, we're defining a DHCP option to learn the PCP server(s), so
> >why wouldn't the client be able to learn the PREFIX64(s) in the same
> >DHCP exchange?
> >
> >I haven't seen an answer to this question yet, and would like to see
> >consensus on the answer before confirming adoption.
> >
> >-Dave
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> >> [e-mail]
> >> Sent: Thursday, January 3, 2013 11:01 PM
> >> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> >> Subject: Re: [pcp] WG Call for Adoption:
> >draft-boucadair-pcp-nat64-prefix64-
> >> option
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> If the PCP server readily has information about Pref64::/n,
> >then why not tell
> >> that to PCP client indeed. But if it has not, then I would
> >ask what is the
> >> benefit of defining PCP option instead of DHCPv6 option?
> >>
> >> In the Behave WG we have been working on analysis of
> >different Pref64::/n
> >> discovery tools, currently in RFC Editor:
> >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-
> >> behave-nat64-learn-analysis-03
> >>
> >> The Behave's work resulted in heuristic approach being
> >selected, which is
> >> currently in AD evaluation:
> >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-behave-
> >> nat64-discovery-heuristic-13
> >>
> >> Should this document formally update learn-analysis and have
> >a section with
> >> similar analysis, stating pros and cons and then concluding
> >why it is useful to
> >> have this solution for PCP deployment scenarios?
> >>
> >> In this document I would like to see text talking about
> >relation to said analysis
> >> document and heuristic approach. For example, if a host does
> >Pref64::/n
> >> discovery with heuristic approach for its generic use (such
> >as local AAAA
> >> record synthesis), is there utility for SIP client to
> >perform separate discovery
> >> also with PCP client?
> >>
> >> Nit: the IPv4-only SIP UA can be IPv4-only, but terminology
> >about IPv6-only
> >> SIP UE is not that accurate IMHO: the draft's SIP UA in
> >IPv6-only *access*
> >> seems to be quite capable of understanding IPv4-world (adding IPv4
> >> addresses to SDP offer), hence maybe better say SIP UA in
> >IPv6-only access,
> >> instead of IPv6-only SIP UA?
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >>
> >>    Teemu
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >On Behalf Of
> >> > ext Reinaldo Penno (repenno)
> >> > Sent: 03. tammikuuta 2013 01:30
> >> > To: [e-mail]
> >> > Subject: [pcp] WG Call for Adoption:
> >> > draft-boucadair-pcp-nat64-prefix64-
> >> > option
> >> >
> >> > Hello,
> >> >
> >> > First of all, Happy new Year!
> >> >
> >> > Based on the discussions at IETF Atlanta Meeting we would like to
> >> > start call of adoption on a few drafts, with the first one below.
> >> >
> >> > This email starts a 2-week consensus call on adopting
> >> >
> >> >      Title           : Learn NAT64 PREFIX64s using PCP
> >> >      Author(s)       : M. Boucadair
> >> >      Filename        :
> >draft-boucadair-pcp-nat64-prefix64-option-02.txt
> >> >      URL             :
> >> >
> >http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-boucadair-pcp-nat64-prefix64-option-02.
> >> > txt
> >> >
> >> > Please read the current revision and state you opinion
> >either for or
> >> > against adoption (and with reasoning why) in the mailing list. The
> >> > call for adoption ends 16th January 2013.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > pcp mailing list
> >> > [e-mail]
> >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> pcp mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp
> >_______________________________________________
> >pcp mailing list
> >[e-mail]
> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp
> >
> _______________________________________________
> pcp mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp