IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [pcp] PORT_SET for application protocols other than SIP

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Fri, 15 March 2013 07:31 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 83CCD21F90CB for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 00:31:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.849
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.849 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.399, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KlcZaG7IuOEJ for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 00:31:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias91.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.91]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D24F21F9099 for <pcp@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 00:31:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omfedm06.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.2]) by omfedm13.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id D1076324504; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 08:31:52 +0100 (CET)
Received: from PUEXCH81.nanterre.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.101.44.34]) by omfedm06.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id B823127C046; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 08:31:52 +0100 (CET)
Received: from PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.11]) by PUEXCH81.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.34]) with mapi; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 08:31:52 +0100
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
To: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>, "pcp@ietf.org" <pcp@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 08:31:50 +0100
Thread-Topic: [pcp] PORT_SET for application protocols other than SIP
Thread-Index: Ac4g8f1Rtntw0Na4QQGm8glsWau6+QAXBfbg
Message-ID: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36EB7F296F7@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
References: <514231F1.1040105@viagenie.ca>
In-Reply-To: <514231F1.1040105@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: 2013.3.5.94520
Subject: Re: [pcp] PORT_SET for application protocols other than SIP
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: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 07:31:54 -0000

Hi Simon,

I do agree with your points. 
Please see inline.
Cheers,
Med


>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : pcp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcp-bounces@ietf.org] De la 
>part de Simon Perreault
>Envoyé : jeudi 14 mars 2013 21:24
>À : pcp@ietf.org
>Objet : [pcp] PORT_SET for application protocols other than SIP
>
>During the meeting earlier today there was a question about 
>whether any 
>application protocol other than SIP could benefit from PORT_SET.

Med: I would say SDP instead. If other examples are needed to cite: there are other non-SDP protocols in the field such as H.323. 

>
>There were some replies to that question that involved the 
>notion of set 
>contiguity.
>
>Contiguity has nothing to do with it. It's not because SIP 
>likes to make 
>use of contiguous ports that it would benefit from PORT_SET. It's all 
>about optimization.

Med: Fully agree. An example is when an address sharing device is configured with a very low address sharing ratio (e.g., 1:2 or 1:5). It would benefit from the PORT_SET option.

 A SIP UAS would be faster if it 
>preallocated a bunch 
>of ports instead of sending a PCP request each time it needed one. It 
>could do that with individual MAP requests, but that would not be as 
>efficient as a single PORT_SET for a number of reasons well stated in 
>the draft.
>
>I stand by my comment that it would be easy to imagine a protocol that 
>would benefit similarly.
>
>But I'll go further with a bold and daring example: PCP itself could 
>benefit from PORT_SET. Imagine a back-to-back PCP server/client, as 
>described in draft-cheshire-recursive-pcp. Imagine that it is 
>very busy, 
>handling many requests per second. It could benefit from PORT_SET by 
>obtaining ports from upstream in big chunks. Then it would 
>manage those 
>chunks like port pools from which it would allocate to downstream 
>clients. That could be more efficient than obtaining ports 
>from upstream 
>with individual MAP requests.

Med: Hence the initial name of the draft: NAT COORDINATION ;-)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email