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

[Fred Baker <[e-mail]>]

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.
> 
> I understand the issue about the normative reference and I really would like to see an RFC number for it soon, as we are one the operator that expressed some urgency for that for the reasons you mentioned.
> 
> Regards,
> Roberta
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: STARK, BARBARA H [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: martedì 11 ottobre 2011 17.01
> To: Fred Baker; Maglione Roberta
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis
> 
> Where I think we were was:
> PCP as a LAN technology (from hosts to CE router) will not be included
> in the draft. There's a lot of open issues and discussion around PCP vs.
> UPnP, lack of host adoption, let the marketplace decide, etc.
> PCP as a WAN technology (proxying UPnP IGD Port Forwarding, *if* the CE
> router supports UPnP IGD) would be in scope of what we're trying to do,
> but there's concern that the unpublished nature of PCP might hold things
> up.
> 
> Barbara
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
>> Of Fred Baker
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 10:33 AM
>> To: Maglione Roberta
>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis
>> 
>> 
>> On Oct 11, 2011, at 10:23 AM, Maglione Roberta wrote:
>> 
>>> Hello,
>>> a question for the authors:
>>> Do you have any plan to include the requirements for PCP in this
>> draft?
>> 
>> wearing the chair hat.
>> 
>> I'm not sure I detect a consensus behind the requirement for PCP. I
>> personally would like to see it there, but I haven't heard a lot of
>> commentary on that besides your request.
>> 
>> PCP is a protocol that would be used within the home to enable
>> applications within the home to open holes in the firewall. The
>> discussion at IETF-81 was that the characteristics of the LAN are now
>> the province of homenet, and as such don't belong in this draft. This
>> draft describes the characteristics of the CPE Router's WAN-facing
>> side.
>> 
>> There is also an issue with PCP; it is currently a draft, and has not
>> been sent to the IESG. Several operators have expressed some urgency
>> for getting an RFC number on this so that they can include it in RFPs
>> for managed routers. If we insert a normative reference to an internet
>> draft, this cannot be published as an RFC until that draft is also
>> published.
>> 
>> The working group can override me - if we see a number of operators
>> asking for PCP to be mentioned in the draft, the authors will review
>> that decision. But right now, that seems like a question for homenet.
>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Regards,
>>> Roberta
> 
> Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzione, Grazie.
> 
> This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks.
>