Re: [pcp] The parity bit in PORT_SET
Jean-Philippe Dionne <jean-philippe.dionne@viagenie.ca> Fri, 15 March 2013 13:56 UTC
Return-Path: <jean-philippe.dionne@viagenie.ca>
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 4C2A021F85B2 for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 06:56:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 OekkrA-wJSyF for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 06:56:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (jazz.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C2FA21F85A1 for <pcp@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 06:56:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-152b.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-152b.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.21.43]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 05CC840439; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 09:56:38 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <5143289C.6070105@viagenie.ca>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 09:56:44 -0400
From: Jean-Philippe Dionne <jean-philippe.dionne@viagenie.ca>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130216 Thunderbird/17.0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
References: <51423670.80403@viagenie.ca> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36EB7F296E3@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
In-Reply-To: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36EB7F296E3@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "pcp@ietf.org" <pcp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [pcp] The parity bit in PORT_SET
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 13:56:41 -0000
On 2013-03-15 03:16, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com wrote: > Dear Jean-Philippe, > > It is not harmful to always set the bit to 1. The server can honor it or ignore it just like the suggested port set size. > An application wanting this will insert also a PREFERE_FAILURE option. Yes it is not harmful and I think that it is safer to always set it to 1. If the PCP client is a deamon watching for listen() request, it might not know that the application needs port parity. For safety, it'll always set the parity bit to 1. For any MAP-PORT_SET request, we could have the requirement that parity is always preserved. I'm wondering if it is worth adding an additional field for parity. This parity bit would also have to appear as an additional parameter in the PCP API that a SIP application would use. If a nat does not support parity preservation, then the pcp client can simply discover the lack of support by looking at the internal and external port parity of the pcp response. Cheers Jean-Philippe
- [pcp] The parity bit in PORT_SET Jean-Philippe Dionne
- Re: [pcp] The parity bit in PORT_SET mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [pcp] The parity bit in PORT_SET Jean-Philippe Dionne