Dan, Reinaldo, Mohamed, Following various discussions in Anaheim, here are the two points on which I believe the PCP of draft-wing-softwire-port-control-protocol-01 can advantageously be extended. (The current scope is: - DS-lite only - Only port-control servers that assign ports one by one.)
1. With the IPv4 address shortage, ISP NATs will be more and more necessary not only in point-to-point configurations, DS-lite in particular, but also in point-to-multipoint configurations, NAT444 in particular. PCP should therefore be a *generic port reservation protocol* applicable to both point-to-point and point-to-multipoint access networks*. If this would be difficult, reasons why limiting to DS-lite would significantly simplify the design should IMHO be discussed. 2. Allowing PCP servers to assign port ranges, rather than just ports one by one, permits in some scenarios better efficiency and/or extended applications. In particular: - For some gaming applications, current practice includes port-range reservations (see for example the user guide downloaded at http://www.linksysbycisco.com/EU/en/products/WRT120N). A host needing a range for an application, and having received a set of ports in one shot: (1) would be able to reserve consecutive ports; (2) would avoid interacting with the port-control server N times if it needs N ports. - If a host that needs a port is given in one shot a range of ports, it is easy in this host to avoid new requests to the server until it has consumed its assigned range. Thoughts? RD _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
