IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sunset4] Call for comments regarding NAT64 port allocation

GangChen <phdgang@gmail.com> Tue, 05 November 2013 00:48 UTC

Return-Path: <phdgang@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27DCF11E8316 for <sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 16:48:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, 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 ArqGvWa0qaE7 for <sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 16:47:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qa0-x22a.google.com (mail-qa0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D14CD11E8302 for <sunset4@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 16:47:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qa0-f42.google.com with SMTP id ii20so151204qab.8 for <sunset4@ietf.org>; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 16:47:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=RaoGJpON/gSuvBvXF4wAoQsFMbemuMN7kZDbk/Trpu4=; b=Awk/vIdVW/y6QoCUD2Sfk2lQOlangk/5YGivrTD3LFBqpUOZG4NsJiZ3iNSGhm3lhm 1nvtG6RniX4dg8ks5VfNmIB0W2S75TKc/Q++UmLzEx+16En5ekcovFvqeyEg8VBYbAtY m/nRfMK30ORfPPX0oQyGHa3Z1q4+j4gwDwU6Y/8sKq5NneKBaoi2C0iyYZaEe2u22+xI ikpDtSQ1qW1EUpkGbqoh8Cop9yPOe1SzgVPCaXDU4G8wAMSzLoCqVVj1Qn8egtAOie2Q F7Nir4As1qdsK08B5ebEjudjrqz2s9fRlMIreOdjRxAv3TychYnaUY9OA/oL1f1z4f5C 0zJg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.49.104.5 with SMTP id ga5mr14671491qeb.58.1383612425188; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 16:47:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.224.204.4 with HTTP; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 16:47:05 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <A46D6F4A-74B4-4784-961D-64A5E455E6DA@viagenie.ca>
References: <CAM+vMEQ9N_H7DGkyf+ifhKsUQro3A-r3FfiR_Q7JSd7q7K8SRA@mail.gmail.com> <1BC10FCC-5815-4BAA-B779-C40B42261E2C@nominum.com> <CAM+vMETSoMbie3QPzGqWe3Zt5myeqU6Cx+aOPNBJ4jDNk+Ym_g@mail.gmail.com> <A46D6F4A-74B4-4784-961D-64A5E455E6DA@viagenie.ca>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 08:47:05 +0800
Message-ID: <CAM+vMEQi+Z+DKJsW9E5WE2-NDQ0OPuVAb0zRSZwW-Z5XXVWsow@mail.gmail.com>
From: GangChen <phdgang@gmail.com>
To: Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: sunset4@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [sunset4] Call for comments regarding NAT64 port allocation
X-BeenThere: sunset4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: sunset4 working group discussion list <sunset4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sunset4>, <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sunset4>
List-Post: <mailto:sunset4@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4>, <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 00:48:01 -0000

2013/11/5, Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>:
> Le 2013-11-04 à 16:36, GangChen <phdgang@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
> cut all cc:. please use the sunset4 ml further.
>
>> I guess PCP could a way to allocate the port. My thought was port
>> allocation with PCP is the behavior of PCP client+NAT64+PCP server. We
>> may not expect each NAT64 is capable of PCP server.
>
> then it is a question of tradeoffs. Needs to be ironed out and discussed.

Yes. It should be discussed.
BTW, there is an analysis draft for PCP, it may provide some
information help to discuss
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-chen-pcp-mobile-deployment-04.txt

BRs

Gang


> Marc.
>
>>
>> BRs
>>
>> Gang
>>
>> 2013/11/5, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>:
>>> Why not just use PCP?
>>>
>>>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email