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

[Simon Perreault <[e-mail]>]

On 2011-10-12 16:59, Fred Baker wrote:
> 
> On Oct 12, 2011, at 3:40 PM, Simon Perreault wrote:
> 
>> On this point: we already have consensus in BEHAVE to make PCP a 
>> requirement for the CGN requirements draft, even though the
>> situation is pretty much the same (operators wanting to quote an
>> RFC number in RFPs). So there's precedent.
> 
> Hmm. If there's a CGM requirements draft, does that extend to IPv4
> CPE Routers appropriate in a CGN environment? If so, that might be
> the "IPv4 CGN" document I suggested Roberta write.

I'm talking about draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements, specifically this
part:

   REQ-9:  A CGN SHOULD include a Port Control Protocol server
           [I-D.ietf-pcp-base].

   Justification:  Allowing subscribers to manipulate the NAT state
      table with PCP greatly increases the likelihood that applications
      will function properly.

Since we're requiring PCP on the CGN, it might make sense to have a
matching requirement on the CPE side. Note that this document only
applies to IPv4 CGNs (and DS-Lite), not NAT64 nor NAT66.

> I'm not certain that an IPv6 CPE Routers document should be giving
> instructions for IPv4 CPE Routers... I'd personally rather keep this
> one clean and pull the rest into an IPv4-related draft. Color me
> biased.

I for one don't see the point of a WAN-facing PCP client on an IPv6 CPE.
I do however see a lot of value in a LAN-facing PCP server, for firewall
control.

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