Subject: Re: [pcp] #17: using PCP to reduce application-level keepalive traffic

From: "pcp issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 07:54:12 -0000

#17: using PCP to reduce application-level keepalive traffic

Comment(by tena@…):

 (Sorry for late reply, due to travelling)
 If we use traffic to refresh, the application would not know when the NAT
 entry set up by PEER message be expired. So I think the entries set by the
 PEER message should be refreshed and made expired by PEER message.
 Although it is OK to use application message to refresh NAT entry, I still
 worry about there is no application message to use for it for some
 application at all.
 For example, there is a FTP server in internal network; PCP is used to set
 up a NAT entry in the NAT device. Before connected to a FTP Client, there
 is no application message to be used at all. In this case, it still
 depends on PEER message to refresh.
 If only use application message to refresh, PCP client cannot recreate the
 NAT entry when PCP server reboots.

 Although the application is normally sending traffic more frequently than
 PEER messages, but if using traffic to refresh, NAT device processing NAT
 entries would be relatively complicated. If so, NAT entry’s refreshment
 needs to differentiate PEER message and traffic. If PEER message request
 is 1 hour, traffic would be more frequent. How each message of traffic to
 refresh NAT entry? Should each pact refresh the NAT entry 1 hour?

 I prefer re-sent forever, which makes NAT device process simpler.

-- 
--------------------------------+-------------------------------------------
 Reporter:  dwing@…             |        Owner:        
     Type:  enhancement         |       Status:  closed
 Priority:  major               |    Milestone:        
Component:  base                |      Version:        
 Severity:  Active WG Document  |   Resolution:  fixed 
 Keywords:                      |  
--------------------------------+-------------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/pcp/trac/ticket/17#comment:3>
pcp <http://tools.ietf.org/pcp/>