Hi Simon, Thank you for the reply. Please also see the exchange with Mohamed on this thread. I agree that the client may not know in advance, but I think what happens to the unused ports (i.e. when are they released?) is worth mentioning. A heuristic, guidance etc. would be useful. Also what-if scenarios, like many clients at once request with 0xffff, how should the server react to that?
Best, Meral > -----Original Message----- > From: Simon Perreault [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 5:40 AM > To: Meral Shirazipour; [email protected]; gen- > [email protected] > Subject: Re: Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-pcp-port-set-10 > > Le 2015-10-12 01:49, Meral Shirazipour a écrit : > > Minor issues: > > -[Page 7], Section 4.1, "If the PCP Client does not know the exact number of > ports its requires, it MAY then set the Port Set Size to 0xffff, indicating > that it > is willing to accept as many ports as the PCP server can offer." > > Question/clarification to add: Mention if there a mechanism where the > server will know which of the mapped ports are going to be used by the > client? and which mappings can be discarded/reused in a subsequent > request. > > Not sure what you mean exactly. The use case we had in mind when we > wrote that sentence was a LW4o6 B4 that would fetch as many ports as it > could to use as a port pool. So it doesn't know in advance how many ports it > will use. It's just asking for as many as the AFTR is willing to provide. I > suppose > a heuristic to release unused ports could be possible, but it would make > much more sense to simply configure the maximum port set size on the AFTR > to a value that makes operational sense. > > Does that answer your question? Do you think changes to the text are > warranted? > > Simon _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
