Subject: [pcp] WG Call for Adoption: draft-tsou-pcp-natcoord-09

From: yangtianle <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 19:03:46 +0800

Hi，all,
 
I’ve read this draft. The extension of PCP is useful and it should be moved forward.
 
I support adopting the draft as WG document.

Tianle Yang
 
 > -----Original Message-----> From: pcp-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:pcp-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Reinaldo Penno (repenno)> Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 7:35 AM> To: pcp at ietf.org> Subject: [pcp] WG Call for Adoption: draft-tsou-pcp-natcoord-09> > Hello,> > This email starts a 2-week consensus call on adopting> >      Title     : Using PCP To Coordinate Between the CGN and Home> Gateway>      Author(s) : Q. Sun et al>      Filename  : draft-tsou-pcp-natcoord-09.txt>      URL       : http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-tsou-pcp-natcoord-09.txt> > Please read the current revision and state you opinion either for or > against adoption (and with reasoning why) in the mailing list.> > The call for adoption ends 16th January 2013.> > Thanks,> > >

---

From: wenmei_chao <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 21:11:30 +0800 (CST)

Hi，everyone,
Support +1. It should be used in several usage scenarios in the future.

MeiChao Wen

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Simon Perreault <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 11:52 PM
Subject: Re: [pcp] WG Call for Adoption: draft-tsou-pcp-natcoord-09
To: Dan Wing <[email-masked]>
Cc: Qiong <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]

Le 2013-01-09 16:48, Dan Wing a écrit :

I would really like to see the need for both PCP and DHCP before either
working group adopts a mechanism.  If we don't do that now, the
same question is likely to arise when during IETF last call or during
IESG review.

Even if the DHCP mechanism would get chosen for LW4o6, I would argue that MAP_PORT_SET still has merit on its own, for the non-LW4o6 purposes we have described.

So I don't see the LW4o6 aspect as a killer, at all. It's just one potential customer.

Simon

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 10:21:25 +0100

Hi,

I have read draft-tsou-pcp-natcoord-09 and it seems a reasonable
starting point if the need to allocate port sets via PCP is needed.
Most of the traditional applications (e.g. softphones) likely do not
need this functionality.

The document mentions LW 4over6 as primary motivation. My
understanding is that PCP is used here as an 'allocation' mechanism,
that is, the NAT function allocates port sets via PCP from a (remote)
PCP server (instead of getting the port set provisioned, e.g. via
DHCP). Since I am not building home gateways or CGNs, I can't really
judge how relevant this use case is.

I was thinking as well whether it is possible to have an OS kernel (or
system daemon) to pre-allocate port sets using this option such that
applications that want to provide services do not have to engage into
PCP interactions themself. I am not sure this is a viable use case, it
is just an idea that popped up while thinking about use cases for this
proposed new option.

/js (who obviously is not an expert on pcp)

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>