IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca> Fri, 27 January 2012 20:49 UTC

Return-Path: <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
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 5137521F86D5; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 12:49:58 -0800 (PST)
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 zyqeZYb17ZPU; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 12:49:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (unknown [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000:226:55ff:fe57:14db]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7A9021F8664; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 12:49:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ringo.viagenie.ca (unknown [IPv6:2620:0:230:c000:d74:bb6d:ddaf:2764]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E742E21F82; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 15:49:56 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <4F230DF4.4040808@viagenie.ca>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 15:49:56 -0500
From: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com>
References: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E611025315@GAALPA1MSGUSR9N.ITServices.sbc.com>
In-Reply-To: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E611025315@GAALPA1MSGUSR9N.ITServices.sbc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "'v6ops@ietf.org'" <v6ops@ietf.org>, "'pcp@ietf.org'" <pcp@ietf.org>, "'draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis@tools.ietf.org'" <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 20:49:58 -0000

On 2012-01-27 15:18, STARK, BARBARA H wrote:
> Just because other solutions weren't created by IETF doesn't mean they are any less good.

<outrageous>
Right. They are less good because PCP is better.
</outrageous>

Sorry, couldn't resist. ;)

Seriously: We already have consensus on a "SHOULD implement a PCP 
server" in draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements. I think we should also 
have it on the CPE. Having only one protocol to support would make it so 
much easier for application developers!

Simon
-- 
DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email