Re: [pcp] WG Call for Adoption: draft-tsou-pcp-natcoord-09

Dear all,

I'm in favor of this draft. I think it should move forward.

Best Regards!

Qi Sun
Tsinghua Univ.

On 2013-1-9, at 下午11:48, Dan Wing wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Qiong [mailto:bingxuere@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2013 5:27 AM
>> To: Dan Wing
>> Cc: Simon Perreault; pcp@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [pcp] WG Call for Adoption: draft-tsou-pcp-natcoord-09
>> 
>> Dear Dan,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 	Another question:  what is the relationship between draft-tsou-pcp-
>> natcoord
>> 	and draft-sun-dhc-port-set-option and draft-wu-dhc-port-set-option?
>> I
>> 	saw there was a request to adopt draft-sun-dhc-port-set-option in
>> DHC,
>> 	and lots of discussion.
>> 
>> 	I have not seen a discussion of using DHCP versus PCP for this
>> 	functionality, which concluded that PCP was the better choice.  Did
>> 	that discussion occur?  If so, can we get a pointer to that
>> 	discussion?
>> 
>> 
>> [Qiong] For the relationship between draft-tsou-pcp-natcoord, draft-sun-
>> dhc-port-set-option and draft-wu-dhc-port-set-option, draft-tsou-pcp-
>> natcoord is a port-set extension for pcp-base and draft-sun-dhc-port-
>> set-option(updated version of draft-wu-dhc-port-set-option ) is a port-
>> set extension on dhcpv4. Both draft-tsou-pcp-natcoord and draft-sun-dhc-
>> port-set-option can work with lightweight 4over6, but draft-tsou-pcp-
>> natcoord is not only designed for lw4over6 use case. It can also be used
>> for other cases like Reinaldo's firewall, SLNAT44, application-based
>> port-set reservation, etc.
>> 
>> 
>> For lw4over6 use case, we do have a discussion of using DHCP or PCP
>> among lw4over6 co-authors (no much discussion in the mailing-list). But
>> it's truely hard to say which one is better. Different operators will
>> have different situations. For example, for operators with existing DHCP
>> server and is not planning to deploy CGN, they may prefer dhcp solution;
>> while for operators with no existing DHCP server and will deploy CGN in
>> the early stage, they may prefer pcp solution. So it is really a
>> deployment choice for them.
> 
> We all know the industry is best served with a single standard, 
> rather than multiple standards (both a PCP mechanism and a DHCP 
> mechanism).  Too many choices is actually harmful, rather than
> helpful.
> 
> I would really like to see the need for both PCP and DHCP before either
> working group adopts a mechanism.  If we don't do that now, the
> same question is likely to arise when during IETF last call or during
> IESG review.
> 
> -d
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> Hope it clarifies.
>> 
>> 
>> Best wishes
>> 
>> Qiong
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  first
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 	-d
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 	_______________________________________________
>> 	pcp mailing list
>> 	pcp@ietf.org
>> 	https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> ==============================================
>> Qiong Sun
>> China Telecom Beijing Research Institude
>> 
>> 
>> Open source code:
>> lightweight 4over6: http://sourceforge.net/projects/laft6/
>> PCP-natcoord: http://sourceforge.net/projects/pcpportsetdemo/
>> ===============================================
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pcp mailing list
> pcp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp