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

["Dan Wing" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> Simon Perreault
> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 1:45 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [pcp] WG Call for Adoption: draft-tsou-pcp-natcoord-09
> 
> Dan,
> 
> Just trying to provide some more clarification...
> 
> Le 2013-01-05 03:09, Dan Wing a écrit :
> > Can it work with a CGN?
> 
> Depends what you mean by CGN.

Previously, I cited draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements, as that is
perhaps the best citation the industry has for "what is a CGN".

> In the current draft version (-09), MAP_PORT_SET assumes that the NAT
> never changes port numbers. The NAT MAY change addresses.

Can that be made clearer in the document, *please*.

> It is possible to remove that assumption. We are planning to do that
> after the call for adoption. Then MAP_PORT_SET will be exactly like MAP,
> except that it works with port *sets* (obviously).

Oh, so with that change, NATCOORD could work with CGN.

> > With the current document text, I cannot understand what sort of
> > deployments where NATCOORD can or cannot be used.  Until I understand
> > that, I can't decide if this document is a good idea or a bad idea.
> 
> Hopefully the above explanation of the protocol will be sufficient for
> you to figure out its applicability. :)


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?

-d