Subject: Re: [pcp] UPnP IGD interworking [was RE: PCP failure scenarios & PCP state synchronization procedure]

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 09:25:57 +0100

In your previous mail you wrote:

   In fact, we have proposed in
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boucadair-pcp-failure-00 the GET
   and GETNEXT methods to sync the state between the PCP Client and
   PCP Server because we think not all CPEs will be able to store the
   mappings in a permanent storage.
   
+1

The CPE is squeezed between hosts and the CGN so it has to rely on
both if it can't use stable storage for itself. BTW this requires a
way to store more information on the CGN side but it is easy to
show this problem is the same than identifying different applications
sharing a host.

   State reliability is important imho to consider. This is not considered as
   it should be in the current base pcp spec.
   
+1 (and there is no good reason as a document is available...)

Thanks

[email-masked]