Re: [midcom] [I2nsf] Comparing MIDCOM, PCP with I2NSF

🔓Dan Wing <> Mon, 09 February 2015 23:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F04111A8AA0; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 15:46:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.21
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5VmMXSxtaVRa; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 15:46:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A5491A8A8D; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 15:46:10 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=12257; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1423525570; x=1424735170; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id: references:to; bh=5wR87kWOm89Q+apJRtq5PDZoyPCZCBBjOLxsnItX6ro=; b=Ir9B97cqDMkLKi0HIvLwfZnAf90mmDFZFLYNglTmAcNwEF8xbkdXM94y et/FUZ8c+YRuDUrTfcezjcBShmaHmMjj6UN1040fksSaU1oW5Hjxxwg1H jjwdtyINyVwvqA9/O151qwQ0bDilLjS/HT161HyJmL4rjQ0+OQs0MNm9J M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.09,547,1418083200"; d="scan'208,217";a="394728185"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 09 Feb 2015 23:46:09 +0000
Received: from [] ([]) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t19Nk8lR018974 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 9 Feb 2015 23:46:09 GMT
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D65631F3-EEE0-45CC-9C30-B094ABF668C5"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\))
From: =?utf-8?Q?=F0=9F=94=93Dan_Wing?= <>
In-Reply-To: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645EC11F0@dfweml701-chm>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 15:46:07 -0800
Message-Id: <>
References: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645EC11F0@dfweml701-chm>
To: Linda Dunbar <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6)
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, Melinda Shore <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [midcom] [I2nsf] Comparing MIDCOM, PCP with I2NSF
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 23:46:14 -0000

PCP deals with an incoming connection (with its MAP opcode) and with timeouts of a connection (with its PEER opcode).  As they are, those don't seem to help much a subscriber choosing some network services function for their traffic.  MAP does have a FILTER option, which provides some filtering (ACL) capabilities, but I expect i2nsf is looking at more advanced functionality than that?


On 09-Feb-2015 11:38 AM, Linda Dunbar <> wrote: 
> Melinda,
> (CC’ed PCP group and MIDCOM group for wider review. )
> After studying RFCs/Charter of MIDCOM and PCP, it seems to me that PCP is a lot more closely tied with MIDCOM than I2NSF.
> “ The PCP working group is chartered to standardize a client/server Port
> Control Protocol (PCP) to enable an explicit dialog with a middlebox
> such as a NAT or a firewall to open up and/or forward TCP or UDP port,
> regardless of the location of that middlebox”
> MIDCOM “focuses its attention on communication with firewalls and network address translators (including translation between IPv6 and IPv4).”
> I  noticed that the detailed protocols developed by MIDCOM is quite different from PCP. For example, the MDCOM protocol is tied closely with the SIP agent (SIP/RTSP Proxy) to send “INVITE”, respond to “180Ringing” or “Port-BIND” reply to Middle Boxes. The MIDCOM protocol is very much SIP protocol oriented, whereas the PCP is more FW/NAT device oriented.
> I2NSF will focus on management of many instances of security functions (virtual security functions), i.e. the use case described by <>:
> Among the 3 actions listed in the Use Case draft, I can see that  #2 below can utilize some of the mechanisms developed by PCP and MIDCOM.
>    1.  Customer enrollment and cancellation of the subscription to a
>       vNSF. (
>    2.  Configuration of the vNSF, based on specific configurations or
>       derived from common security policies defined by the operator.
>    3.  Retrieve and list of the vNSF functionalities, extracted from a
>       manifest or a descriptor.  The network operator management systems
>       can demand this information to offer detailed information through
>       the commercial channels to the customer.
> What messages & protocols by MIDCOM & PCP do you see that can be used for I2NSF purpose?
> Linda
> _______________________________________________
> I2nsf mailing list