Technical Summary:
This document specifies DHCP (IPv4 and IPv6) options to configure
hosts with Port Control Protocol (PCP) Server IP addresses. The use
of DHCPv4 or DHCPv6 depends on the PCP deployment scenario.
Working Group Summary:
There was controversy around the use of IP address vs hostnames vs
strings passed to getaddrinfo (which could be hostname or IP literal).
The WG eventually achieved rough consensus on the IP address mechanism
recommended by Ted Lemon, referencing [I-D.ietf-dhc-topo-conf] informatively
for discussion on how various scenarios can still be solved using that
mechanism.
Document Quality:
One implementation is documented at
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boucadair-pcp-nat64-experiments-00#section-2.9
Other implementations are expected.
Ted Lemon performed DHCP review and raised issues with the previous approach
(strings passed to getaddrinfo). A significant discussion ensued which
resulted in Ted authoring draft-ietf-dhc-topo-conf for WGs and documents
to reference. That document was presented to the PCP WG, which then got
consensus on the final approach (IP addresses, and referencing that draft
for discussion of operational guidance).
Personnel:
Dave Thaler is the Document Shepherd.
Ted Lemon is the Responsible Area Director.
RFC Editor Note:
In section 8, please make the following change:
OLD:
The PCP Server option targets mainly the simple threat model
(Section 18.1 of [RFC6887]). It is out of scope of this document to
discuss potential implications of the use of this option in the
advanced threat model (Section 18.2 of [RFC6887]).
NEW:
The PCP server option defined here is applicable when operating
under the simple threat model (Section 18.1 of [RFC6887]). Operation
under the advanced threat model (section 18.2 of [RFC6887]) may
or may not be appropriate; analysis of this question is out of
scope for this document.