IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] PCP server in draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis

"Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com> Fri, 27 January 2012 22:42 UTC

Return-Path: <shemant@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17CB821F8532; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:42:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.168
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.168 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.831, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, 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 nqb7oQ2rce27; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:41:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4739721F8526; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:41:59 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=shemant@cisco.com; l=1762; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1327704119; x=1328913719; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to:cc; bh=W4HFlpUjCRdO+vuJsXdCfrDFI42rnf/jrgeLoIS1pe0=; b=ap/cCpqN7N1Q5j7ZM9KRjNEO5ddGbBqiUkG6ZLgTAAIWL0z2IO8W624O ldr6ahL5p2ttgv6CDEI+nAahbdmrnd1VqJvqSIVkA8bd7I3+FDeBuDbec 7zAvRJhCSQW5c/sr0WWbvubCC6R9pLFwPFSfFCER5BpL1YjEF/XxMx7bT w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAFAL0mI0+tJV2d/2dsb2JhbABErH6BV4EFgXIBAQEDARIBHQo/BQcEAgEIEQQBAQsGFwEGAUUJCAEBBAESCBqHWplaAZ46iQ8mNRsDhEuCWGMEiD+fRw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,582,1320624000"; d="scan'208";a="54470209"
Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Jan 2012 22:41:58 +0000
Received: from xbh-rcd-301.cisco.com (xbh-rcd-301.cisco.com [72.163.63.8]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q0RMfwOI012637; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 22:41:58 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-109.cisco.com ([72.163.62.151]) by xbh-rcd-301.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 27 Jan 2012 16:41:58 -0600
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 16:41:57 -0600
Message-ID: <5B6B2B64C9FE2A489045EEEADDAFF2C303DE3753@XMB-RCD-109.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <169401ccdd2e$23b48910$6b1d9b30$@com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] PCP server in draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis
Thread-Index: AczdLiNo+NvlTE2QQH2IlmZasEPwAgAFfTSQ
References: <169401ccdd2e$23b48910$6b1d9b30$@com>
From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com>
To: "Dan Wing (dwing)" <dwing@cisco.com>, v6ops <v6ops@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Jan 2012 22:41:58.0610 (UTC) FILETIME=[E0CF5320:01CCDD44]
Cc: pcp@ietf.org, mohamed.boucadair@orange-ftgroup.com, Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>, draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] PCP server in draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 22:42:00 -0000

Dan,

-----Original Message-----
From: v6ops-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Dan Wing (dwing)
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 2:59 PM
To: 'v6ops'
Cc: pcp@ietf.org; draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [v6ops] PCP server in draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis

>   S-1:  The IPv6 CE router SHOULD support [RFC6092].  In particular,
>         the IPv6 CE router SHOULD support functionality sufficient for
>         implementing the set of recommendations in [RFC6092],
>         Section 4.  This document takes no position on whether such
>         functionality is enabled by default.  The IPv6 CE router 
>...............................................^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>         SHOULD implement a PCP server [I-D.ietf-pcp-base] so that
>.........^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>         hosts can configure this functionality.
>.........^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The plan of record for rfc6204bis was indeed to add a PCP requirement if
during the progression of the rfc6204bis document to the IESG, PCPbase
became an RFC or is pending publication.   "PCPbase pending publication"
has happened - good.  Now the specific req related to PCP we had agreed
upon with v6ops during the last discussion was to include a PCP client
in the CPE router, not a server.  We had not agreed to a server because
for one, one large host OS vendor is Microsoft does not have PCP support
yet or least not as of a few months back.  I have cced to Dave Thaler
who had also agreed at the time to not include a server.  Why can't the
user of the CPE router manually provision a pinhole port and the PCP
client in the CPE router sends a request to the DS-Lite AFTR.

Hemant

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email