From xiaohong.deng@orange-ftgroup.com Fri Aug 5 06:02:54 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88FBE21F87F0 for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 06:02:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.524 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.524 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.725, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ubJS4ZhuuKCY for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 06:02:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com [195.101.245.16]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E26921F87C7 for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 06:02:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 80D0D958007; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 15:07:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ftrdsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.192.128.46]) by p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 050619580C3; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 15:04:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ch-mailsrv.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.193.250.27]) by ftrdsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 5 Aug 2011 14:56:16 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 20:56:13 +0800 Message-ID: <0962B0BEF842A24191AD9BE41A8DD2FC01918CBF@ch-mailsrv.rd.francetelecom.fr> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [pcp] PCP interop Thread-Index: AQHMTyD0nrSg3WzP0ECif1ufPUL1OJUOP22A References: <0962B0BEF842A24191AD9BE41A8DD2FC018DE7B6@ch-mailsrv.rd.francetelecom.fr> From: To: , , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Aug 2011 12:56:16.0857 (UTC) FILETIME=[10671C90:01CC536F] Cc: pcp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [pcp] PCP interop X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PCP wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 13:02:54 -0000 Yiu, thanks for your attention!;) Xiaohong |-----Original Message----- |From: Lee, Yiu [mailto:Yiu_Lee@Cable.Comcast.com]=20 |Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2011 9:27 AM |To: DENG Xiaohong ESP/PEK; Alain Durand; pselkirk@isc.org |Cc: pcp@ietf.org |Subject: Re: [pcp] PCP interop | |Congrats and well done! | |On 7/28/11 5:09 PM, "xiaohong.deng@orange-ftgroup.com" | wrote: | |>In case a story between rough consensus and interop sounds fun: |> |>Francis and I have had a conversation before Quebec meeting about=20 |>whether putting IPv6 or IPv4 source address in the common header, and=20 |>that time being Francis thought it should be IPv4 while Paul thought=20 |>IPv6. After that, Francis, finally, changed one line of code because=20 |>our implementation agreed with Paul, which make the two=20 |implementations=20 |>interop. |> |>Well, rough consensus, indeed, makes things happen! ;-) |> |>Xiaohong |> |>|-----Original Message----- |>|From: Alain Durand [mailto:adurand@juniper.net] |>|Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 6:01 AM |>|To: Paul Selkirk |>|Cc: pcp@ietf.org |>|Subject: Re: [pcp] PCP interop |>| |>|This is GREAT! During the PCP meeting, when I introduced the demo, I=20 |>|asked for an interop session next IETF, you guys have delivered 4=20 |>|months early! |>|Congratulations! |>| |>| -Alain. |>| |>| |>| |>|On Jul 27, 2011, at 5:25 PM, Paul Selkirk wrote: |>| |>|> When we got to Quebec, we had only been planning a very simple PCP=20 |>|> demo - our client, our server, and our IWF. But there was the=20 |>|> Huawei/France Telecom group, with all of their kit. And it=20 |turns out=20 |>|> we both implement |>|> draft-12 over DS-Lite, so we're using the same packet=20 |format in the=20 |>|> same environment. Hmm... |>|>=20 |>|> Today we used our client to request mappings from their |>|server. We did |>|> this with both a simple command-line client and with a modified=20 |>|> torrent client. |>|>=20 |>|> Testing was limited to MAP4, with and without PREFER_FAILURE. |>|> They don't seem to support FILTER, we don't support things like=20 |>|> draft-tsou-pcp-natcoord-03, neither support the DHCP option, etc. |>|> But the core functionality works. |>|>=20 |>|> for rough consensus and running code, |>|> paul |>|> _______________________________________________ |>|> pcp mailing list |>|> pcp@ietf.org |>|> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp |>| |>| |>| |>_______________________________________________ |>pcp mailing list |>pcp@ietf.org |>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp | | From Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr Mon Aug 8 01:57:37 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 886FB21F8A96 for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 01:57:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.578 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.578 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.021, BAYES_00=-2.599] 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 lubE2mDGzmS3 for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 01:57:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (unknown [IPv6:2001:41d0:1:6d55:211:5bff:fe98:d51e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5284721F84E6 for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 01:57:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by givry.fdupont.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p788v2Rr042714 for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 10:57:03 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from dupont@givry.fdupont.fr) Message-Id: <201108080857.p788v2Rr042714@givry.fdupont.fr> From: Francis Dupont To: pcp@ietf.org Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 10:57:02 +0200 Sender: Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr Subject: [pcp] static mapping X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PCP wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 08:57:37 -0000 I'd like to detail my proposal about static mappings here: - the main idea is PCP doesn't modify static mappings (MUST NOT) - if PCP tries to create an explicit dynamic mapping which overwrites a static mapping the static mapping is returned instead (SHOULD (*), static == lifetime set to C99 UINT32_MAX) - if PCP tries to delete an explicit dynamic mapping which is in fact a static mapping (BTW this should be unlikely as there is no good reason to blindly delete one mapping) then the static mapping can be returned (MAY, same returned value than in the previous item). This should be placed in the 8.4 Processing a MAP Request section and IMHO the end of "Mapping Types" in 3 Terminology should refer to this section. Regards Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr PS (*): I put a SHOULD but I am fine with a MUST if someone finds a good argument. From Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr Mon Aug 8 06:11:15 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A237421F8A4E for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 06:11:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.698 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.861, BAYES_00=-2.599, MISSING_SUBJECT=1.762] 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 IOdtwGN+aIIk for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 06:11:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (givry.fdupont.fr [IPv6:2001:41d0:1:6d55:211:5bff:fe98:d51e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 214E421F86D8 for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 06:11:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by givry.fdupont.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p78DBZOn058032 for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 15:11:35 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from dupont@givry.fdupont.fr) Message-Id: <201108081311.p78DBZOn058032@givry.fdupont.fr> From: Francis Dupont To: pcp@ietf.org Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 15:11:34 +0200 Sender: Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr Subject: [pcp] (no subject) X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PCP wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 13:11:16 -0000 Form base 13: If any of occurrences of the FILTER Option in a request packet are not successfully processed then an error is returned (e.g., MALFORMED_OPTION if one of the Options was malformed) and as with other PCP errors, returning an error causes no state to be changed in the PCP server or in the PCP-controlled device. this puts a constraint on implementations which should be more explicit, I propose to add an implementor note saying "when the processing of a MAP request with FILTER options is split in two phases, the first one for creation or updating of the explicit dynamic mapping, the second for fitering, if a mapping was created in the first phase and the second failed then the mapping must be deleted. Regards Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr From Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr Mon Aug 8 06:16:41 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04C2121F86BE for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 06:16:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.525 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.525 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.074, BAYES_00=-2.599] 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 xExn7YNAKb5J for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 06:16:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (givry.fdupont.fr [IPv6:2001:41d0:1:6d55:211:5bff:fe98:d51e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4878E21F86BD for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 06:16:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by givry.fdupont.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p78DH1sq058391; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 15:17:01 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from dupont@givry.fdupont.fr) Message-Id: <201108081317.p78DH1sq058391@givry.fdupont.fr> From: Francis Dupont To: Stuart Cheshire Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 15:17:01 +0200 Sender: Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr Cc: pcp@ietf.org Subject: [pcp] about the PCP recovery I-D X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PCP wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 13:16:41 -0000 I have two proposals about the draft-cheshire-pcp-recovery I-D: - first use a site local (in place of link-local) multicast address so it will work in the whole site even it is a graph with a deep > 1. - second to add the external address, the idea is to warn quicky about external address change. As usual the external address should not be undefined only when there is (only) one available. Regards Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr From Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr Tue Aug 9 04:04:07 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8410C21F8B21 for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 04:04:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.53 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.53 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.069, BAYES_00=-2.599] 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 SX-oWkOXYtfI for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 04:04:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (givry.fdupont.fr [IPv6:2001:41d0:1:6d55:211:5bff:fe98:d51e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5E4521F8AFD for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 04:04:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by givry.fdupont.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p79B4YHE038000 for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 13:04:34 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from dupont@givry.fdupont.fr) Message-Id: <201108091104.p79B4YHE038000@givry.fdupont.fr> From: Francis Dupont To: pcp@ietf.org Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 13:04:34 +0200 Sender: Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr Subject: [pcp] DS-Lite modes X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PCP wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 11:04:07 -0000 I am looking for co-authors for a draft about DS-Lite modes. This draft should be in favor of the plain mode but the encapsulation mode (the alternative) will be described in an informational annex. My plan is to write the I-D in xml (xml2rfc schema) for the end of the week and to submit it next week. Please contact me at my other address if you are interested. Regards Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr From dwing@cisco.com Tue Aug 9 08:49:20 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C5FF21F8777 for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 08:49:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.528 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.528 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.929, 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 KUugkLWJO+Us for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 08:49:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 068FC21F875C for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 08:49:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=dwing@cisco.com; l=1596; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1312904988; x=1314114588; h=from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=44UaQWta9uX6a00BUUsk7IuSyDFKo1/FKtJVjUTD59U=; b=ctLMkkPtv8jIhOC+4oNpYczHIRHxbDce2ogNUSUi9OFH0XCwlKnnnsvl fxM4bicQ+1+rBieuQA8z7gvMQw34v71HhdPMB7kPXmUCoQi5NAjAelAVG Y95Yrnf170kccqxSdrF9c1hKwHXP3FaouuTzjjtFNagUo27aqusZhgw1U M=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AuAAABVWQU6rRDoI/2dsb2JhbABCl2CBbI1xd4FAAQEBAQIBAQEBBQoBFxA0EAcBAwIJDwEBBAEBKAcZDhUKCQgBAQQBEgsXh0sEoBIBnnGGRgSHXJw0 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,344,1309737600"; d="scan'208";a="11337013" Received: from mtv-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.58.8]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Aug 2011 15:49:47 +0000 Received: from dwingWS (sjc-vpn6-606.cisco.com [10.21.122.94]) by mtv-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p79Fnk71027865; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 15:49:47 GMT From: "Dan Wing" To: "'Francis Dupont'" , References: <201108081311.p78DBZOn058032@givry.fdupont.fr> In-Reply-To: <201108081311.p78DBZOn058032@givry.fdupont.fr> Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 08:49:47 -0700 Message-ID: <019c01cc56ab$f7e02500$e7a06f00$@com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AcxVzLqls1MaY528SfCSKNpGpZnvJAAYRrbw Content-Language: en-us Subject: Re: [pcp] (no subject) X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PCP wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 15:49:20 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: pcp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Francis Dupont > Sent: Monday, August 08, 2011 6:12 AM > To: pcp@ietf.org > Subject: [pcp] (no subject) > > Form base 13: > > If any of occurrences of the FILTER Option in a request packet are > not successfully processed then an error is returned (e.g., > MALFORMED_OPTION if one of the Options was malformed) and as with > other PCP errors, returning an error causes no state to be changed > in > the PCP server or in the PCP-controlled device. > > this puts a constraint on implementations which should be more > explicit, > I propose to add an implementor note saying "when the processing of > a MAP request with FILTER options is split in two phases, the first one > for creation or updating of the explicit dynamic mapping, the second > for > fitering, if a mapping was created in the first phase and the second > failed then the mapping must be deleted. Section 5.3, "Options", already says: If, while processing an Option, an error is encountered that causes a PCP error response to be generated, the PCP request MUST cause no state change in the PCP server or the PCP-controlled device (i.e., it rolls back any changes it might have made while processing the request). which agrees with your proposed text. Is that insufficient? -d > Regards > > Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr > _______________________________________________ > pcp mailing list > pcp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp From Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr Tue Aug 9 09:29:12 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A376D21F8CAA for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 09:29:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.533 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.533 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.066, BAYES_00=-2.599] 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 ErI9PQZhmyZd for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 09:29:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (givry.fdupont.fr [IPv6:2001:41d0:1:6d55:211:5bff:fe98:d51e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8F4121F8CA4 for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 09:29:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by givry.fdupont.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p79GTbNs057800; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 18:29:37 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from dupont@givry.fdupont.fr) Message-Id: <201108091629.p79GTbNs057800@givry.fdupont.fr> From: Francis Dupont To: "Dan Wing" In-reply-to: Your message of Tue, 09 Aug 2011 08:49:47 PDT. <019c01cc56ab$f7e02500$e7a06f00$@com> Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 18:29:37 +0200 Sender: Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr Cc: pcp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [pcp] (no subject) X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PCP wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 16:29:12 -0000 In your previous mail you wrote: Section 5.3, "Options", already says: If, while processing an Option, an error is encountered that causes a PCP error response to be generated, the PCP request MUST cause no state change in the PCP server or the PCP-controlled device (i.e., it rolls back any changes it might have made while processing the request). which agrees with your proposed text. => yes, the FILTER case is just an application of a more general principle. Is that insufficient? => I can't say... IMHO you should ask another implementor. Thanks Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr PS: still looking for co-authors for PCP DS-Lite (the xml is ready but surely should be reviewed and improved :-) From rpenno@juniper.net Tue Aug 9 09:33:48 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F06CF11E8082 for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 09:33:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.483 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.483 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.116, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] 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 mfWqApR7cTXC for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 09:33:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og114.obsmtp.com (exprod7og114.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.215]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0044011E8080 for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 09:33:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob114.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTkFhg0qYD9jm+tsa0Qmp8rxfdBqCQVIF@postini.com; Tue, 09 Aug 2011 09:34:16 PDT Received: from p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net (172.28.145.25) by P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.254.0; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 09:32:04 -0700 Received: from EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net ([fe80::1914:3299:33d9:e43b]) by p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net ([fe80::c126:c633:d2dc:8090%11]) with mapi; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 12:32:04 -0400 From: Reinaldo Penno To: Francis Dupont , Stuart Cheshire Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 12:32:02 -0400 Thread-Topic: [pcp] about the PCP recovery I-D Thread-Index: AcxVzZW2+M8/YtwET+aKxhKmNzDUvgA5EhCF Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <201108081317.p78DH1sq058391@givry.fdupont.fr> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/13.9.0.110114 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "pcp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [pcp] about the PCP recovery I-D X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PCP wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 16:33:48 -0000 On 8/8/11 6:17 AM, "Francis Dupont" wrote: > I have two proposals about the draft-cheshire-pcp-recovery I-D: > - first use a site local (in place of link-local) multicast address > so it will work in the whole site even it is a graph with a deep > 1. >=20 > - second to add the external address, the idea is to warn quicky > about external address change. As usual the external address should > not be undefined only when there is (only) one available. The external address as in the NAT pool addresses? >=20 > Regards >=20 > Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr > _______________________________________________ > pcp mailing list > pcp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp From Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr Tue Aug 9 14:08:17 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CD965E8016 for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 14:08:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.537 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.537 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.062, BAYES_00=-2.599] 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 0Wf+w5X32RkW for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 14:08:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (givry.fdupont.fr [IPv6:2001:41d0:1:6d55:211:5bff:fe98:d51e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51C6F5E8010 for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 14:08:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by givry.fdupont.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p79L8eAg074786; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 23:08:40 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from dupont@givry.fdupont.fr) Message-Id: <201108092108.p79L8eAg074786@givry.fdupont.fr> From: Francis Dupont To: Reinaldo Penno In-reply-to: Your message of Tue, 09 Aug 2011 12:32:02 EDT. Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 23:08:40 +0200 Sender: Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr Cc: Stuart Cheshire , "pcp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [pcp] about the PCP recovery I-D X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PCP wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 21:08:17 -0000 In your previous mail you wrote: > - second to add the external address, the idea is to warn quicky > about external address change. As usual the external address should > not be undefined only when there is (only) one available. The external address as in the NAT pool addresses? => yes, the best should be to use the same wording than in the (next version of) base draft. Regards Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr From rpenno@juniper.net Tue Aug 9 19:55:10 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5781021F8B44 for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 19:55:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.488 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.488 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.111, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] 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 hnBJMvlpEXiO for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 19:55:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og123.obsmtp.com (exprod7og123.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.24]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F61E21F8B42 for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 19:55:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob123.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTkHzKcPOs4S7vXKZtAHCjHbeWp69fRKD@postini.com; Tue, 09 Aug 2011 19:55:40 PDT Received: from p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net (172.28.145.25) by P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.254.0; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 19:51:48 -0700 Received: from EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net ([fe80::1914:3299:33d9:e43b]) by p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net ([fe80::c126:c633:d2dc:8090%11]) with mapi; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 22:51:48 -0400 From: Reinaldo Penno To: Francis Dupont Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 22:51:45 -0400 Thread-Topic: [pcp] about the PCP recovery I-D Thread-Index: AcxW2ImltoEfKQfqRlChtTmmWoStIgAL+cdO Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <201108092108.p79L8eAg074786@givry.fdupont.fr> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/13.9.0.110114 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Stuart Cheshire , "pcp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [pcp] about the PCP recovery I-D X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PCP wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 02:55:10 -0000 In a large CGN there can be quite a lot of NAT pool prefixes/ranges. Do we wording about having to fit in a single UDP packet? On 8/9/11 2:08 PM, "Francis Dupont" wrote: > In your previous mail you wrote: >=20 >> - second to add the external address, the idea is to warn quicky >> about external address change. As usual the external address should >> not be undefined only when there is (only) one available. > =20 > The external address as in the NAT pool addresses? > =20 > =3D> yes, the best should be to use the same wording than in the > (next version of) base draft. >=20 > Regards >=20 > Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr From Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr Wed Aug 10 00:27:01 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57A6521F851A for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 00:27:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.54 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.54 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.059, BAYES_00=-2.599] 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 qSwGsT9WxM73 for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 00:27:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (givry.fdupont.fr [IPv6:2001:41d0:1:6d55:211:5bff:fe98:d51e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A31121F8515 for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 00:27:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by givry.fdupont.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p7A7QtIq012419; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 09:26:56 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from dupont@givry.fdupont.fr) Message-Id: <201108100726.p7A7QtIq012419@givry.fdupont.fr> From: Francis Dupont To: Reinaldo Penno In-reply-to: Your message of Tue, 09 Aug 2011 22:51:45 EDT. Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 09:26:55 +0200 Sender: Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr Cc: Stuart Cheshire , "pcp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [pcp] about the PCP recovery I-D X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PCP wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 07:27:01 -0000 In your previous mail you wrote: In a large CGN there can be quite a lot of NAT pool prefixes/ranges. Do we wording about having to fit in a single UDP packet? => the receovery packet is local so this should not happen and BTW my proposal has the *one* in it so the needed room is for 128 bits, no more. Regards Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr From rpenno@juniper.net Wed Aug 10 04:16:15 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9295721F873D for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 04:16:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.438 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.438 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.161, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] 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 XnE4e6J371XD for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 04:16:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og108.obsmtp.com (exprod7og108.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.169]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35B0821F873A for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 04:16:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob108.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTkJoky6KmMoXBiOMySqJtPMsMWa7Yf7a@postini.com; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 04:16:45 PDT Received: from p-emfe01-wf.jnpr.net (172.28.145.24) by P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.254.0; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 04:16:26 -0700 Received: from EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net ([fe80::1914:3299:33d9:e43b]) by p-emfe01-wf.jnpr.net ([fe80::d0d1:653d:5b91:a123%11]) with mapi; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 07:16:25 -0400 From: Reinaldo Penno To: Francis Dupont Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 07:16:23 -0400 Thread-Topic: [pcp] about the PCP recovery I-D Thread-Index: AcxXLvoZrV1tebOOQ4WrHqfmegvIrAAH/XBW Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <201108100726.p7A7QtIq012419@givry.fdupont.fr> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/13.9.0.110114 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Stuart Cheshire , "pcp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [pcp] about the PCP recovery I-D X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PCP wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 11:16:15 -0000 On 8/10/11 12:26 AM, "Francis Dupont" wrote: > In your previous mail you wrote: >=20 > In a large CGN there can be quite a lot of NAT pool prefixes/ranges. D= o we > wording about having to fit in a single UDP packet? > =20 > =3D> the receovery packet is local so this should not happen and > BTW my proposal has the *one* in it so the needed room is for > 128 bits, no more. But different hosts in the same site can be bound to different public IPs. Do we now have to send different messages? > =20 > Regards >=20 > Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr From Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr Wed Aug 10 04:25:27 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32B3121F877B for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 04:25:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.543 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.543 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.056, BAYES_00=-2.599] 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 QbrU6lVeGeYN for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 04:25:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (givry.fdupont.fr [IPv6:2001:41d0:1:6d55:211:5bff:fe98:d51e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61D3421F876F for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 04:25:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by givry.fdupont.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p7ABPrYY027038; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 13:25:53 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from dupont@givry.fdupont.fr) Message-Id: <201108101125.p7ABPrYY027038@givry.fdupont.fr> From: Francis Dupont To: Reinaldo Penno In-reply-to: Your message of Wed, 10 Aug 2011 07:16:23 EDT. Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 13:25:53 +0200 Sender: Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr Cc: Stuart Cheshire , "pcp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [pcp] about the PCP recovery I-D X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PCP wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 11:25:27 -0000 In your previous mail you wrote: But different hosts in the same site can be bound to different public IPs. Do we now have to send different messages? => no, in this case there is not *one* external address so it should be set to undefined/zero (*). Thanks Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr PS (*): exactly as if a delete all (empty third party option) request was sent. BTW the base spec doesn't say if it is zero (::) or undefined (:: for IPv6, ::ffff:0.0.0.0 for IPv4). The two are not really equivalent as the undefined address includes the IP version (so is less undefined than zero :-). And this question is for MAP and PEER opcodes too! From rpenno@juniper.net Wed Aug 10 07:47:18 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88B9021F85A1 for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 07:47:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.443 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.443 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.156, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] 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 iZGNJu2sjrHt for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 07:47:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og114.obsmtp.com (exprod7og114.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.215]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D40DF21F8596 for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 07:47:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob114.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTkKaE2Zvcnu2SWeAZziZsNZjJzC1Qav4@postini.com; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 07:47:49 PDT Received: from p-emfe01-wf.jnpr.net (172.28.145.24) by P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.254.0; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 07:47:18 -0700 Received: from EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net ([fe80::1914:3299:33d9:e43b]) by p-emfe01-wf.jnpr.net ([fe80::d0d1:653d:5b91:a123%11]) with mapi; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 10:47:18 -0400 From: Reinaldo Penno To: Francis Dupont Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 10:47:16 -0400 Thread-Topic: [pcp] about the PCP recovery I-D Thread-Index: AcxXUEkqk8u2GPNjRZ2XXrkGTaK+OwAHBx31 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <201108101125.p7ABPrYY027038@givry.fdupont.fr> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/13.9.0.110114 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Stuart Cheshire , "pcp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [pcp] about the PCP recovery I-D X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PCP wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 14:47:18 -0000 On 8/10/11 4:25 AM, "Francis Dupont" wrote: > In your previous mail you wrote: >=20 > But different hosts in the same site can be bound to different public = IPs. > Do we now have to send different messages? > =20 > =3D> no, in this case there is not *one* external address so > it should be set to undefined/zero (*). Isn't it better than to just keep the message as it is today? >=20 > Thanks >=20 > Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr >=20 > PS (*): exactly as if a delete all (empty third party option) request > was sent. BTW the base spec doesn't say if it is zero (::) or > undefined (:: for IPv6, ::ffff:0.0.0.0 for IPv4). The two are not > really equivalent as the undefined address includes the IP version > (so is less undefined than zero :-). > And this question is for MAP and PEER opcodes too! From Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr Wed Aug 10 08:10:03 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E93721F86F4 for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 08:10:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.545 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.545 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.054, BAYES_00=-2.599] 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 DWKohLZecbWL for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 08:10:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (givry.fdupont.fr [IPv6:2001:41d0:1:6d55:211:5bff:fe98:d51e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7800C21F86DF for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 08:10:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by givry.fdupont.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p7AFA0oH040673; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 17:10:00 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from dupont@givry.fdupont.fr) Message-Id: <201108101510.p7AFA0oH040673@givry.fdupont.fr> From: Francis Dupont To: Reinaldo Penno In-reply-to: Your message of Wed, 10 Aug 2011 10:47:16 EDT. Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 17:10:00 +0200 Sender: Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr Cc: Stuart Cheshire , "pcp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [pcp] about the PCP recovery I-D X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PCP wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 15:10:03 -0000 In your previous mail you wrote: > => no, in this case there is not *one* external address so > it should be set to undefined/zero (*). Isn't it better than to just keep the message as it is today? => no because in the use of of the recovery message it will be very likely one external address. Thanks Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr From Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr Thu Aug 11 06:09:20 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A33D421F8764 for ; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 06:09:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.552 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.552 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.047, BAYES_00=-2.599] 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 KPXp5yuGLzoQ for ; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 06:09:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (givry.fdupont.fr [IPv6:2001:41d0:1:6d55:211:5bff:fe98:d51e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD49221F875E for ; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 06:09:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by givry.fdupont.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p7BD9rsV020908 for ; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 15:09:53 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from dupont@givry.fdupont.fr) Message-Id: <201108111309.p7BD9rsV020908@givry.fdupont.fr> From: Francis Dupont To: pcp@ietf.org Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 15:09:53 +0200 Sender: Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr Subject: [pcp] MAP4 vs MAP6 clarification X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PCP wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 13:09:20 -0000 The base 13 spec is not very clear about the use of MAP4 vs MAP6 (and says nothing for PEER4 vs PEER6, one can just suppose the same logic applies). There are only two places where one can find an indication: - section 7 (not normative?) where the choice is done according to client's listeners - section 10.3 (FILTER option) as nearly a side effect. IMHO the addresses involved in PCP can be classified into: - source addresses (mainly the client's address in the common header) - internal addresses - external addresses - remote peer addresses It seems the current spec uses the last class (remote peer addresses) for opcode4 vs opcode6 but: - this is far to be very clear - this information is redundant with the base 13 address encoding (i.e., IPv4 mapped IPv6 addresses) So IMHO we have two choices: - merge MAP4 and MAP6 (and PEER4 with PEER6) - attach the opcode version to the remote peer one and make inconsistent requests malformed BTW it should be fine to have a table with the IP version to use for the 4 classes in function of the kind of device controlled by the PCP server, i.e.: IPv4 firewall: source, internal, external, remote: v4 IPv6 firewall: source, internal, external, remote: v6 DS-Lite plain mode: source: v6 internal, external, remote: v4 DS-Lite encapsulation mode: source, internal, external, remote: v4 ?NAT64: source, internal: v6 external, remote: v4 ?NAT46: source, internal: v4 external, remote: v6 NAT444 (both home gateway and CGN): source, internal, external, remote: v4 Regards Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr From Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com Thu Aug 11 18:58:37 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64D4F21F8AF8 for ; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 18:58:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.029 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.029 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.570, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] 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 28qOH9cunWIf for ; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 18:58:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (szxga01-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.64]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87D0821F8AF0 for ; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 18:58:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from huawei.com (szxga05-in [172.24.2.49]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LPS00AOYLHSP8@szxga05-in.huawei.com> for pcp@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 09:58:40 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LPS00HM1LHQCN@szxga05-in.huawei.com> for pcp@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 09:58:40 +0800 (CST) Received: from 172.24.2.119 (EHLO szxeml205-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.24.2.119]) by szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.1.9-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id ADC86211; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 09:58:38 +0800 (CST) Received: from SZXEML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.93) by szxeml205-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.57) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 09:58:33 +0800 Received: from SZXEML526-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.99]) by szxeml406-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.93]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 09:58:35 +0800 Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 01:58:35 +0000 From: Tina TSOU In-reply-to: <201108101510.p7AFA0oH040673@givry.fdupont.fr> X-Originating-IP: [10.193.34.126] To: Francis Dupont , Reinaldo Penno Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-language: en-US Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Thread-topic: [pcp] about the PCP recovery I-D Thread-index: AQHMV2+SzGJXWf2EZ02N+2pg3unWKJUYdlhg X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected References: "10 Aug 2011 10:47:16 EDT." <201108101510.p7AFA0oH040673@givry.fdupont.fr> Cc: Stuart Cheshire , "pcp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [pcp] about the PCP recovery I-D X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PCP wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 01:58:37 -0000 Francis and Stuart, Compared to -00, in the new method of draft-cheshire-pcp-recovery-01, it says that if the external IP address pool of CGN changes, it can reply response packet to user, and ask user to update the local PCP entries. I understand that it needs application's support. For example, one P2P application has already issue the applied public address and port, if it receives the update information, it needs to update local listening port, and issue the info to tracker again. Is it difficult for application to support? Best Regards, Tina TSOU http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html -----Original Message----- From: pcp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Francis Dupont Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 8:10 AM To: Reinaldo Penno Cc: Stuart Cheshire; pcp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [pcp] about the PCP recovery I-D In your previous mail you wrote: > => no, in this case there is not *one* external address so > it should be set to undefined/zero (*). Isn't it better than to just keep the message as it is today? => no because in the use of of the recovery message it will be very likely one external address. Thanks Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr _______________________________________________ pcp mailing list pcp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp From Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com Tue Aug 16 10:39:04 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A59BC11E80F5; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 10:39:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.057 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.057 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.542, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] 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 zVGuupyNQZlv; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 10:39:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (szxga01-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.64]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E37B211E80F4; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 10:39:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from huawei.com (szxga05-in [172.24.2.49]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LQ100IIC7QED0@szxga05-in.huawei.com>; Wed, 17 Aug 2011 01:39:50 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LQ1007OJ7QDQ3@szxga05-in.huawei.com>; Wed, 17 Aug 2011 01:39:50 +0800 (CST) Received: from 172.24.2.119 (EHLO szxeml206-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.24.2.119]) by szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.1.9-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id ADF73727; Wed, 17 Aug 2011 01:39:49 +0800 (CST) Received: from SZXEML410-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.137) by szxeml206-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.58) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Wed, 17 Aug 2011 01:39:45 +0800 Received: from SZXEML526-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.7.177]) by szxeml410-hub.china.huawei.com ([169.254.101.122]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Wed, 17 Aug 2011 01:39:45 +0800 Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 17:39:43 +0000 From: Tina TSOU X-Originating-IP: [10.193.34.126] To: "behave@ietf.org" , "pcp@ietf.org" Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-language: en-US Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Thread-topic: two users request same address and port Thread-index: AcxcO3jp3sKqYmkyRu68rHYQ8viICg== X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-cr-hashedpuzzle: AgvH BDbq Bhf1 CWDb C0C4 GIGK JVyz KMSl ML+p N6C2 OHYA PUn9 TQTS VFtu W66y Ya2O; 2; YgBlAGgAYQB2AGUAQABpAGUAdABmAC4AbwByAGcAOwBwAGMAcABAAGkAZQB0AGYALgBvAHIAZwA=; Sosha1_v1; 7; {9CEFBBB8-2477-4FDF-B722-860D48EB766C}; dABpAG4AYQAuAHQAcwBvAHUALgB6AG8AdQB0AGkAbgBnAEAAaAB1AGEAdwBlAGkALgBjAG8AbQA=; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 17:39:39 GMT; dAB3AG8AIAB1AHMAZQByAHMAIAByAGUAcQB1AGUAcwB0ACAAcwBhAG0AZQAgAGEAZABkAHIAZQBzAHMAIABhAG4AZAAgAHAAbwByAHQA x-cr-puzzleid: {9CEFBBB8-2477-4FDF-B722-860D48EB766C} X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Subject: [pcp] two users request same address and port X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PCP wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 17:39:04 -0000 Hi guys, http://portforward.com/cports.htm If two end users using XBox request same IPv4 public external address on CGN, and same port, what will happen? The CGN still works with these applications listed above in the website link. Best Regards, Tina TSOU http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html From dwing@cisco.com Tue Aug 16 11:04:11 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CFE721F8B82; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 11:04:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.48 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.48 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.881, 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 jNdNzNDpThHT; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 11:04:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03BEC21F8B7C; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 11:04:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=dwing@cisco.com; l=967; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1313517900; x=1314727500; h=from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=1mf9PlOeKRFekSLOYJCNGFRTq4taU6Te1vLmzfGKQ4U=; b=Eo0ef7rafmto3Ka+zSOzX4E8phILVVG5iE8EaV7GwL1W+Yuwiv1O4vk1 nRP4pH+ljGfSCsK+Jo6G1BlaDikpu+j0wmRU+2XLmDkk0VB/lm74T0jDW 3Q6rgiPF7wnQZlla89Hmp3Zero4+IiNYf2uHNsfqOksTQhciNpruDnSr1 Q=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: As8AAFuwSk6rRDoI/2dsb2JhbABBmGqBbI1pd4FAAQEBAQIBAQEBBQoBFxA0EAcBAwIJDwIEAQEoBxkOFQoJCAEBBAESCxeHTgSaJQGfKYZIBIdfnEg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.68,234,1312156800"; d="scan'208";a="13652369" Received: from mtv-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.58.8]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Aug 2011 18:04:59 +0000 Received: from dwingWS (sjc-vpn2-166.cisco.com [10.21.112.166]) by mtv-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p7GI4xvm008472; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 18:04:59 GMT From: "Dan Wing" To: "'Tina TSOU'" , , References: In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 11:04:58 -0700 Message-ID: <16ee01cc5c3f$03193360$094b9a20$@com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AcxcO3jp3sKqYmkyRu68rHYQ8viICgAA2uyg Content-Language: en-us Subject: Re: [pcp] two users request same address and port X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PCP wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 18:04:11 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: pcp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Tina TSOU > Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 10:40 AM > To: behave@ietf.org; pcp@ietf.org > Subject: [pcp] two users request same address and port > > Hi guys, > http://portforward.com/cports.htm > > If two end users using XBox request same IPv4 public external address > on CGN, and same port, what will happen? If the address and port is available for assignment to that user, the user will get it. Otherwise, the user won't. So in the case above, the first user will probably get the address and port and the second user won't. -d > The CGN still works with these > applications listed above in the website link. > > > > Best Regards, > Tina TSOU > http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html > > _______________________________________________ > pcp mailing list > pcp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp From Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr Tue Aug 16 11:12:24 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A189221F8B98; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 11:12:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.554 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.554 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.045, BAYES_00=-2.599] 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 VlIocdxPCozp; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 11:12:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (givry.fdupont.fr [IPv6:2001:41d0:1:6d55:211:5bff:fe98:d51e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7CAA21F8B2F; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 11:12:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by givry.fdupont.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p7GID05J076910; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 20:13:00 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from dupont@givry.fdupont.fr) Message-Id: <201108161813.p7GID05J076910@givry.fdupont.fr> From: Francis Dupont To: Tina TSOU In-reply-to: Your message of Tue, 16 Aug 2011 17:39:43 -0000. Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 20:13:00 +0200 Sender: Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr Cc: "pcp@ietf.org" , "behave@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [pcp] two users request same address and port X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PCP wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 18:12:24 -0000 In your previous mail you wrote: If two end users using XBox request same IPv4 public external address on CGN, and same port, what will happen? => if the question is about two subscribers at most one of the two gets the external address and port. If it is about two users but one subscriber the problem should get the same result but is solved locally. BTW by definition on a CGN nobody can expect to get a particular external port with a chance >> 0, so perhaps I haven't understood the question? Regards Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr From Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr Tue Aug 16 13:37:17 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9056111E80E9 for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 13:37:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.555 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.555 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.044, BAYES_00=-2.599] 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 wIwgKIxX+ZuQ for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 13:37:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (givry.fdupont.fr [IPv6:2001:41d0:1:6d55:211:5bff:fe98:d51e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8EF011E80E8 for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 13:37:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by givry.fdupont.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p7GKc57I085804 for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 22:38:05 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from dupont@givry.fdupont.fr) Message-Id: <201108162038.p7GKc57I085804@givry.fdupont.fr> From: Francis Dupont To: pcp@ietf.org Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 22:38:05 +0200 Sender: Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr Subject: [pcp] PCP DS-Lite mode I-D X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PCP wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 20:37:17 -0000 I've just submitted the PCP in DS-Lite environments aka plain mode Internet Draft. Regards Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr