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

Dear Med and other DS-Lite folks,

If someone can answer my use case question below related to PCP I'd appreciate it.  We need a use case so that I can plan specific text related to PCP for the IPv6 CE router document.

Thanks,

Hemant

-----Original Message-----
From: v6ops-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hemant Singh (shemant)
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 1:34 PM
To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com; Fred Baker (fred); Maglione Roberta; draft-ietf-pcp-base@tools.ietf.org; pcp-chairs@tools.ietf.org
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org; Ullio Mario; draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis@tools.ietf.org; MEILLAREC Loïc OLNC/NAD/TIP
Subject: Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis

Dear Med,

Sure, I do understand the need.  However, if say Windows hosts from Microsoft do not support a PCP client, then the IPv6 CE router has no client PCP request to proxy/serve to the SP CGN.  So is the CE router sniffing all unicast packets and inspecting ports in the packets to initiate PCP client requests from the CGN?  A use case would be good to articulate.  We will not forget during IESG review.  It's a sentence to add to the IPv6 CE router document such as "The IPv6 CE router SHOULD/MUST support a PCP Proxy/server on LAN interface(s) and a PCP Client in the WAN interface."  But the PCP base document needs to become a RFC ASAP.  Even if we add a normative reference to the PCP-base I-D in the rfc6204bis document, the rfc6204bis will stall in the RFC Editor Queue waiting for PCP-base to become an RFC. I have guidance from the Chairs to try and send the rfc6204bis document to the IESG ASAP.

Regards,

Hemant

-----Original Message-----
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com [mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 12:56 PM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant); Fred Baker (fred); Maglione Roberta; draft-ietf-pcp-base@tools.ietf.org; pcp-chairs@tools.ietf.org
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org; MEILLAREC Loïc OLNC/NAD/TIP; draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis@tools.ietf.org; Ullio Mario
Subject: RE: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis

Dear Hemant,

Because we have the same pressure at the PCP front, including the PCP-requirements in the 6204bis is more safe IMHO. There is a risk to forget inserting appropriate text during the IESG review. 

Cheers,
Med

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Hemant Singh (shemant) [mailto:shemant@cisco.com] 
Envoyé : mardi 18 octobre 2011 18:25
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP; Fred Baker (fred); Maglione Roberta; draft-ietf-pcp-base@tools.ietf.org; pcp-chairs@tools.ietf.org
Cc : v6ops@ietf.org; MEILLAREC Loïc OLNC/NAD/TIP; draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis@tools.ietf.org; Ullio Mario
Objet : RE: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis

Mohamed,

Thanks for your feedback.  Please see this message I sent earlier on the PCP subject.

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg10643.html

Fred as Chair has one suggestion.  During the IESG stage for the rfc6204bis document, we can consider adding PCP if PCP becomes an RFC by that timeframe.   The IPv6 CE router document has its hands tied.  I would work with the PCP and PCP proxy folks to get them to be RFC's ASAP.

Regards,

Hemant

-----Original Message-----
From: v6ops-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 11:41 AM
To: Fred Baker (fred); Maglione Roberta; draft-ietf-pcp-base@tools.ietf.org; pcp-chairs@tools.ietf.org
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org; MEILLAREC Loïc OLNC/NAD/TIP; draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis@tools.ietf.org; Ullio Mario
Subject: Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis

Dear Fred, all,

As part of our DS-Lite deployment, PCP is a requirements for us. I strongly support including PCP in 6204bis.

Note that PCP is not only about IPv4 service continuity but also about IPv6... 

Cheers,
Med 

_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
v6ops@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops