IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [pcp] Comments on draft-ietf-pcp-optimize-keepalives-00

"Prashanth Patil (praspati)" <praspati@cisco.com> Sun, 20 October 2013 22:21 UTC

Return-Path: <praspati@cisco.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 717DE11E82B9 for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Oct 2013 15:21:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 eybvwi2x2oUE for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Oct 2013 15:21:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCBA911E82A0 for <pcp@ietf.org>; Sun, 20 Oct 2013 15:21:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4056; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1382307664; x=1383517264; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=EBnQ+4XYN5tTr/E7qA4By8cZin67YLDSiiWdCKMklik=; b=UqZnasRpXyFH22cb5ArREOOO41ZaASzMlO8wbXhC/CLo/i0wCrkv/sGZ B4yVLHOGwaxizSNOPgqZOSKVocKINlUur6FXVCnbBhFDEVO5uaw9xSSas p7VtrEHfSRzCDkOuJRBc0dcOqvbEZsRMbNCyBk3a554KFz+boTkSNi/QN k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhcFABlXZFKtJV2b/2dsb2JhbABagkNEgQy+MoEkFnSCJwEEeRIBCAQeHTkUEQIEAQ0FCId+vV2PKzEHgx+BCgOqEIMkgio
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.93,535,1378857600"; d="scan'208,217"; a="274414019"
Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Oct 2013 22:20:48 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x04.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x04.cisco.com [173.37.183.78]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r9KMKmee020722 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Sun, 20 Oct 2013 22:20:48 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x07.cisco.com ([169.254.7.33]) by xhc-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([fe80::200:5efe:173.37.183.34%12]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Sun, 20 Oct 2013 17:20:47 -0500
From: "Prashanth Patil (praspati)" <praspati@cisco.com>
To: "Reinaldo Penno (repenno)" <repenno@cisco.com>, "pcp@ietf.org" <pcp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [pcp] Comments on draft-ietf-pcp-optimize-keepalives-00
Thread-Index: AQHOzeKfnGUgGfsZ20KROlyX2+2+sQ==
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 22:20:46 +0000
Message-ID: <B235506D63D65E43B2E40FD27715372E1CEFB7A4@xmb-rcd-x07.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <45A697A8FFD7CF48BCF2BE7E106F06040B7320E5@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.8.130913
x-originating-ip: [10.65.43.34]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B235506D63D65E43B2E40FD27715372E1CEFB7A4xmbrcdx07ciscoc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [pcp] Comments on draft-ietf-pcp-optimize-keepalives-00
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: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 22:21:09 -0000

Hi Reinaldo,
Sections "3.3 Detect PCP Unaware Firewall" and "4. Keepalive Interval Determination Procedure when PCP unaware Firewall or NAT is detected" were added based on Dave's recommendation.

Section 3.3 does not introduce anything new, it only provides an example on how a PCP unaware firewall can be detected using STUN. Section 4 is also a recommendation on what can be potentially done if a PCP unaware firewall was detected.

Dave, what are your thoughts on this?

-Prashanth

On 11/10/13 4:45 PM, "Reinaldo Penno (repenno)" <repenno@cisco.com<mailto:repenno@cisco.com>> wrote:

I reviewed this draft for a possible WGLC but I do not think it is ready.
My summary is that this draft has lots of text related to detection of PCP
unaware NAT/FW using STUN which IMO belong in a separate draft, or some
other document since it is generic text. Maybe the WG sees value in having
a separate document that talks exclusively about detection of PCP unaware
FWs.

This draft could just say "assuming all NAT/FW in the path are PCP
aware..." and take it from there since the goal is optimizing keep-alive
and not standardizing detection mechanisms.

Removing all detection text would make this draft quite short and easier
to understand its purpose.

Thanks,

Reinaldo

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email