Subject: Re: [v6ops] PCP server in draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis

From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 16:28:34 -0600

James,

Sorry for the delay.   Along the lines of what Barbara already said, I
would like to add that major host OS's  such as Microsoft Windows nor
MAC OS (?) support a PCP client yet?  At least till a few months back -
vendors can keep me honest.   If a host does not support a PCP client,
what host will issue PCP requests to a PCP server in the IPv6 CPE
router?   Thus it makes sense to let the homenet WG deal with the PCP
server req on the CPE router LAN and we ship rfc6204bis with the PCP
client req that Alain Durand agreed with for DS-Lite use.  Thanks to
Dave Thaler who helped prepare text for the specific PCP client req in
the CPE.

Thanks,

Hemant

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of james woodyatt
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 5:09 PM
To: STARK, BARBARA H
Cc: IPv6 Operations; PCP; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [v6ops] PCP server in draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis

On Jan 30, 2012, at 12:59 , STARK, BARBARA H wrote:

If I were to make a technical argument about the harmfulness of RFC
6092, I would start with a lengthy review of its Security
Considerations, in section 6.

I think it's a debatable question of procedure, whether it was an error
at the time for V6OPS to publish RFC 6204 with its S-1 "requirement" to
recommend implementation of RFC 6092.  There was a clamor for the timely
publication of a document, and neither HOMENET nor PCP were remotely
close to usable when RFC 6204 was in WGLC.

I do think it shouldn't be controversial *now* to say that HOMENET is
the venue where any further IETF recommendations about the
implementation of RFC 6092 in IPv6 CE routers should originate.  If you
disagree, then once again, I have to ask for an explanation of your
reasoning.  I'm very interested to know.

If V6OPS wishes to continue stepping on HOMENET's charter, on the
grounds that it already has its footprints there from before HOMENET was
launched, then I suppose that's fine- but, if so, then I don't see why
V6OPS shouldn't also take this opportunity to revise RFC 6204 to
recommend a PCP server to meet REC-48 in RFC 6092.  Again, as a purely
technical matter- I know, technical matters are so boring- IETF has a
standards-track protocol for ""host applications to solicit inbound
traffic without advance knowledge of the addresses of exterior nodes
with which they expect to communicate" as RFC 6092 recommends.  We did
not have this protocol when either RFC 6092 or RFC 6204 were ready for
publication, but we do now.  I fail to see any technical basis for
leaving this unspecified in RFC 6204bis.  Is there one?

Alternatively, if this is primarily a procedural dispute, then we could
open RFC6092bis in order to update REC-48 accordingly, then cite the
RFC6092bis in RFC6204bis with a publication in lockstep.  Which would
you prefer?

--

j h woodyatt <[email-masked]>

---

From: james woodyatt <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 16:29:44 -0800

On Feb 20, 2012, at 14:28 , Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
>  
> Sorry for the delay.   Along the lines of what Barbara already said, I would like to add that major host OS’s  such as Microsoft Windows nor MAC OS (?) support a PCP client yet?  At least till a few months back -  vendors can keep me honest.   If a host does not support a PCP client, what host will issue PCP requests to a PCP server in the IPv6 CPE router?   Thus it makes sense to let the homenet WG deal with the PCP server req on the CPE router LAN and we ship rfc6204bis with the PCP client req that Alain Durand agreed with for DS-Lite use.  Thanks to Dave Thaler who helped prepare text for the specific PCP client req in the CPE.

In other words, you're telling me there's no point in implementing a PCP client for IPv6 simple security in a host operating system, because none of the IPv6 Ready CE routers will have PCP servers.  Good to know.

--
james woodyatt <[email-masked]>
member of technical staff, core os networking

---

From: Simon Perreault <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 08:56:38 -0500

On 02/20/12 17:28, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
> would like to add that major host OS’s such as Microsoft Windows nor MAC
> OS (?) support a PCP client yet? At least till a few months back -

OS support is almost irrelevant. Applications today do UPnP and NAT-PMP 
without OS support. They just send the packets themselves, using 
UPnP/NAT-PMP in a third-party (often open source) library. I would 
expect the same for PCP.

Applications evolve much faster than the IETF is accustomed to. You 
could wake up one day to one or two new open source PCP libraries, and 
then wake up the next with the major BitTorrent apps supporting PCP, and 
then everything else follows (games, etc.).

Simon

---

From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 11:46:48 -0600

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Simon Perreault
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 8:57 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [v6ops] PCP server in draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis

>then everything else follows (games, etc.).

The other reason is that the LAN behavior of a CPE router is under the
homenet WG charter for over one year back.  Rfc6204bis stays away from
any new LAN behavior for the CPE router.

Hemant