IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [pcp] TR: I-D Action: draft-boucadair-pcp-sip-ipv6-00.txt

Sebastian Kiesel <ietf-pcp@skiesel.de> Mon, 19 August 2013 20:33 UTC

Return-Path: <sebi@gw01.ehlo.wurstkaes.de>
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 662A411E82C5 for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 13:33:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-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 QAbocOblskMX for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 13:33:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gw01.ehlo.wurstkaes.de (gw01.ehlo.wurstkaes.de [IPv6:2a02:a00:e000:116::41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D264911E80EF for <pcp@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 13:33:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sebi by gw01.ehlo.wurstkaes.de with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <sebi@gw01.ehlo.wurstkaes.de>) id 1VBW8T-0006OA-GR; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 22:33:09 +0200
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 22:33:09 +0200
From: Sebastian Kiesel <ietf-pcp@skiesel.de>
To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Message-ID: <20130819203309.GB1867@gw01.ehlo.wurstkaes.de>
References: <20130626134028.17581.26454.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36EDB5C82CE@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36EDB5C82CE@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
Accept-Languages: en, de
Organization: my personal mail account
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Cc: "pcp@ietf.org" <pcp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [pcp] TR: I-D Action: draft-boucadair-pcp-sip-ipv6-00.txt
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: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 20:33:21 -0000

Hi,

On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 05:04:52PM +0200, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com wrote:
> Dear all,
> 
> I submitted this short I-D to explain how PCP can be used in IPv6 SIP deployments (with a focus on the managed networks case).

> Objet: I-D Action: draft-boucadair-pcp-sip-ipv6-00.txt

I have read this draft and I think this is a very interesting topic.
However, it is not very clear to me what the key message of this draft is.

I think there are at least two topics that deserve investigation and
discussion, with different target audiences:

1. A gap analysis for PCP, i.e., tell the PCP folks what should be
changed or added to PCP to better support this use case (if any).

2. Tell the SIP folks about PCP and its benefits. IMO this chapter
should start with a short discussion what's new compared to older
(managed) NAT/Firewall traversal approaches, e.g., MIDCOM [RFC5190,
RFC4540] and NSIS [RFC5973]. Is the interaction really straightforward,
or are there any pitfalls (e.g., [draft-kiesel-mmusic-firewall-sip-00]) to
consider?


Cheers
Sebastian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email