Re: [pcp] #28: UPnP/NAT-PMP Interop functionality in base spec or separate specs

"Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> Sat, 26 February 2011 02:19 UTC

From: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
To: 'Paul Selkirk' <pselkirk@isc.org>, pcp@ietf.org
References: <s1vtyfs7x6d.fsf@bikeshed.isc.org>
In-Reply-To: <s1vtyfs7x6d.fsf@bikeshed.isc.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 18:20:38 -0800
Message-ID: <08d801cbd55b$c276b1d0$47641570$@com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Thread-Index: AcvVHuizu5hkKJUiRGWiEmzgU3mnGQAPI75Q
Content-Language: en-us
Subject: Re: [pcp] #28: UPnP/NAT-PMP Interop functionality in base spec or separate specs
Precedence: list

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pcp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Paul Selkirk
> Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 11:05 AM
> To: pcp@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [pcp] #28: UPnP/NAT-PMP Interop functionality in base spec
> or separate specs
> 
> >     As of -05, the UPnP interworking details were removed from the
> base
> >     document.  The bast document now points to
> http://tools.ietf.org/html
> >     /draft-bpw-pcp-upnp-igd-interworking
> >
> >     Closed.
> 
> The UPnP IGD IWF document needs to be adopted as a WG document.
> I think the chairs can do this by fiat.

I hope they do that soon.  

Same with the DHCP document.

> There is no NAT-PMP IWF document.  It should be easy to write, and
> Francis has volunteered to edit it.
>
> There should also be a PCP IWF (aka proxy in this case) document.
> (Note there are some open problems to implement one, so this is not
> only about completing the IWF document set.)

I would consider that a higher priority than NAT-PMP->PCP, myself,
because it is necessary for the Dual-Stack Lite B4 element, a home
NAT with CGN ("NAT444"), and probably some other scenarios.

-d

Re: [pcp] #28: UPnP/NAT-PMP Interop functionality… Paul Selkirk
Re: [pcp] #28: UPnP/NAT-PMP Interop functionality… Dan Wing