IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis

Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> Thu, 13 October 2011 06:41 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@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 7AFF321F8797 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 23:41:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.358
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.358 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.241, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 4P4oYhT7Fmxi for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 23:41:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mtv-iport-2.cisco.com (mtv-iport-2.cisco.com [173.36.130.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EF6021F87F0 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 23:41:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; l=1737; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1318488062; x=1319697662; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id: references:to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=6R2GRYHE6+JlK/qIa+RmGDPDw9IjlUs/VljMo6XW0yo=; b=EZatX8ekaq6Q7kB7Z1FxF5gdL+Egl+w8TYXcKlVRGMJb55R+4j/jj7m+ MAC4EoWDss5aLSa7+R+98mN2c/+EseCdQ7cNdjRQ3VGsbw+lX1NPBzyE8 x/wScMb0aUXJFkIIYhrF7fVPoJ7bLWHskF3HN4Hd5LZVYfUawI48lX9qK o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av4EAHmHlk6rRDoH/2dsb2JhbABDqEyBBYFTAQEBAwESARQTDx4SBQsLGC5XBhMZAgeHXAiZUAGeKIcMYQSIAYt3hSiMTQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.69,338,1315180800"; d="scan'208";a="7575878"
Received: from mtv-core-2.cisco.com ([171.68.58.7]) by mtv-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Oct 2011 06:41:02 +0000
Received: from Freds-Computer.local (sjc-vpn6-109.cisco.com [10.21.120.109]) by mtv-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p9D6ei1f016255; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 06:41:01 GMT
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by Freds-Computer.local (PGP Universal service); Wed, 12 Oct 2011 23:41:02 -0700
X-PGP-Universal: processed; by Freds-Computer.local on Wed, 12 Oct 2011 23:41:02 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D52AF042-05E8-4E1D-B99F-A6113D5A8B2D@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 23:41:01 -0700
Message-Id: <1A1B2400-D127-4339-8839-82D5EC0751B5@cisco.com>
References: <201110111355.p9BDt1M23806@ftpeng-update.cisco.com> <282BBE8A501E1F4DA9C775F964BB21FE3EB758B7A8@GRFMBX704BA020.griffon.local> <1B8E4C5A-D08B-4F37-B701-A39745136A33@cisco.com> <750BF7861EBBE048B3E648B4BB6E8F4F1FDCA4C3@crexc50p> <282BBE8A501E1F4DA9C775F964BB21FE3EB758B7AB@GRFMBX704BA020.griffon.local> <B06E5723-1EE5-4808-AE7F-3D98EB3F17CE@cisco.com> <D52AF042-05E8-4E1D-B99F-A6113D5A8B2D@apple.com>
To: Stuart Cheshire <cheshire@apple.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org, pcp-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-pcp-base@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis@tools.ietf.org, Ullio Mario <mario.ullio@telecomitalia.it>, Brett Halle <brett@apple.com>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] new draft: 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: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 06:41:03 -0000

On Oct 12, 2011, at 9:39 PM, Stuart Cheshire wrote:

> On 12 Oct 2011, at 1:45, Fred Baker wrote:
> 
>> Adding the PCP chairs and the authors of http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pcp-base; folks, what is your plan for PCP?
>> 
>> Roberta, I understand now that you're looking at a WAN-side solution. Again, I'm looking for comment from other operators. But if we add it to this spec, I would like to see PCP in the IESG's hands as we send 6204bis in. I will note that this is about IPv4 life extension, not IPv6 deployment.
>> 
>> On Oct 12, 2011, at 4:21 AM, Maglione Roberta wrote:
>> 
>>> Hello Fred and Barbara,
>>> When a Carrier Grade NAT is deployed in the Service Provider's network PCP could be seen as the geographic extension of UPnP as it may be used in order to control how incoming packets are forwarded by the upstream device.
>>> 
>>> In my opinion PCP is not a topic strictly restricted to the homenet WG, but it may belong to this document as this draft already contains DS-Lite and PCP and DS-Lite could be use together in the Service Provider's network.
> 
> From the beginning PCP has been designed as a protocol for managing port mappings in *all* NATs, both small-scale home NATs and large-scale carrier NATs.
> 
> I believe the protocol as we currently have it designed meets both those needs very well.
> 
> I don't see any need for different LAN and WAN protocols -- just as we don't have a LAN version and a WAN version of HTTP.

And the plan for the draft->IESG is... 2011? 2012? 2020? What?

> Stuart Cheshire <cheshire@apple.com>
> * Wizard Without Portfolio, Apple Inc.
> * www.stuartcheshire.org
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email