IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] PCP and I-D.ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Wed, 11 September 2013 06:23 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.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 29DF811E8178 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 23:23:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.248
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.248 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 hQOiL8l9dwFr for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 23:23:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias243.francetelecom.com [80.12.204.243]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C68B611E812C for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 23:23:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omfeda08.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.201]) by omfeda13.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 6AF69190686; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 08:23:05 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from PUEXCH61.nanterre.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.101.44.32]) by omfeda08.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 51328384077; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 08:23:05 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.233.200.25]) by PUEXCH61.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.32]) with mapi; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 08:23:05 +0200
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
To: "cb.list6" <cb.list6@gmail.com>, james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 08:23:03 +0200
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] PCP and I-D.ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile
Thread-Index: Ac6uaRdKvidUAMPTRTep1DghXdWkLAATOY7w
Message-ID: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36EF0EE8128@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
References: <7A28FE9A-EBA4-4C4C-8608-04B4A7820805@apple.com> <CAKD1Yr3cAocujBtp34ByzUXsQ9qugPbvuAHHcOoNy5Z1O_bTiA@mail.gmail.com> <FDD45577-8792-48C3-A038-58625BE2AA23@apple.com> <CAD6AjGTaQ1BBd=4Qs8_UTEkmF4TPb6rDg60q5zdkBgxwcixhTA@mail.gmail.com> <84AC6F38-6CBE-468E-9699-154664617B47@apple.com> <CAD6AjGSasthmXZhREdNA_vMFtosS==UdT7=UPjk00pYuuVpe+A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD6AjGSasthmXZhREdNA_vMFtosS==UdT7=UPjk00pYuuVpe+A@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: fr-FR
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-PMX-Version: 5.6.1.2065439, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2013.9.11.53017
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] PCP and I-D.ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile
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: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 06:23:12 -0000

Hi all,

Yes, that was discussed among authors and decided to go for a SHOULD. 

One comment here: the ICE & cie path is not ideal ... and may require PCP to solve various issues: see http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-penno-rtcweb-pcp-00 for more details. 

For the particular case of the voice over IP in managed networks (which will be the case for mobile VoIP), some benefits of PCP are: 

   o  Avoid embedding an ALG in the middleboxes.  Note, ALGs are not
      recommended since the evolution of the service would depend on the
      ALG maintenance.
   o  Not require any Hosted NAT Traversal function (e.g.,
      [I-D.ietf-mmusic-latching]) to be embedded in the SIP server.
      Intermediate NATs and firewalls are transparent to the SIP service
      platform.
   o  Avoid overloading the network with keepalive message to maintain
      the mapping in the mid-box.
   o  Not require symmetric RTP/RTCP to work.
   o  Not require symmetric SIP to work (i.e., rport [RFC3581]).
   o  Easily support unidirectional sessions.
   o  No early media issues.
   o  Because there is no need for connectivity checks, session
      establishment delay is not impacted (pairs of ports can be pre-
      reserved)

Cheers,
Med

>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : v6ops-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de
>cb.list6
>Envoyé : mardi 10 septembre 2013 23:02
>À : james woodyatt
>Cc : v6ops@ietf.org WG
>Objet : Re: [v6ops] PCP and I-D.ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile
>
>On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 1:53 PM, james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 10, 2013, at 12:58, cb.list6 <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> [.]
>>
>> I don't support PCP, and cannot see it being deployed any time soon.
>> The idea of it gives me heartburn.
>> [.]
>>
>> I am hopeful more network operators will see it our way.
>>
>>
>> In shorter terms: you concur with me that
>> I-D.ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile should drop all its current
>> recommendations regarding the deployment of PCP clients in cellular
>hosts.
>> Is that so?
>>
>
>
>I have made that case, but that idea was in the rough from the author team.
>
>CB
>
>>
>> --
>> james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>
>> core os networking
>>
>_______________________________________________
>v6ops mailing list
>v6ops@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email