Hi Simon, Le 16 avr. 2010 à 14:02, Simon Perreault a écrit :
> On 2010-04-16 05:04, Rémi Després wrote: >> (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. > > I had understood the scope to also include NAT64. See section 2. Strictly speaking, you are right, but section 2 starts with "PCP has a very focused goal of allowing port reservation in the context of Dual-Stack Lite". Other configurations should, IMHO, be clearly on the same footing. > Unless the authors foresee specific problems with a larger scope, I > agree it should be expanded to "any NAT44 or NAT64." Let's focus on logical > functions, not on specific deployments. > > The scope should also include multiple layers of NAT. Agreed. PCP must be a protocol between PCP clients and PCP servers, with enough initial use cases to justify it, but without preventing other use cases to be found useful. Regards, RD > > Simon > -- > NAT64/DNS64 open-source --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca > STUN/TURN server --> http://numb.viagenie.ca > vCard 4.0 --> http://www.vcarddav.org > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
