Re: [pcp] Review of draft-ietf-pcp-upnp-igd-interworking

<> Fri, 17 August 2012 14:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84E6521F8454 for <>; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 07:15:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.338
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.338 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.490, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_32=0.6, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r8sqe5uvryyl for <>; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 07:15:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 289CC21F842E for <>; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 07:15:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown [xx.xx.xx.4]) by (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 48CA626435D; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 16:15:25 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from (unknown []) by (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 24FA8238056; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 16:15:25 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 16:15:06 +0200
From: <>
To: Xiaohong Deng <>, "" <>, "" <>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 16:15:06 +0200
Thread-Topic: [pcp] Review of draft-ietf-pcp-upnp-igd-interworking
Thread-Index: Ac18fy0uAImkGSXCRF6fEcmSX5jfQgAAzGEg
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: fr-FR
Content-Language: fr-FR
acceptlanguage: fr-FR
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E512B4463PUEXCB1Bnante_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-PMX-Version:, Antispam-Engine:, Antispam-Data: 2012.8.17.104219
Subject: Re: [pcp] Review of draft-ietf-pcp-upnp-igd-interworking
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: PCP wg discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 14:15:27 -0000

Hi Xiaohong,

The current text says only "1" is allowed: i.e., the iwf is supposed to send back an error if not set to 0.

If you have a better wording, this is welcome.


De : Xiaohong Deng []
Envoyé : vendredi 17 août 2012 15:50
Objet : Re: [pcp] Review of draft-ietf-pcp-upnp-igd-interworking

Hi Med,

Thanks for your efficient feedback.

Please see inline. Now focus only on unsolved ones.

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:24 AM, <<>> wrote:
      PCP does not support deactivating the dynamic NAT mapping since
      the initial goal of PCP is to ease the traversal of Carrier Grade
      NAT.  Supporting such per-subscriber function may overload the
      Carrier Grade NAT.
+ What if the customer wants to deactivate a static NAT mappings on CGN? it is not stated clearly that IWF should support it or not. My reading here is that for the same reason: not to overload the carrier Grade NAT, it should not support deactivate static mappings either. IMO,it's worth to state clearer that it applys to both static and dynamic mappings, if that is what text here means.
[Med] IGD spec says "PortMappingEnabled: This variable allows security conscious users to disable and enable dynamic NAT port mappings on the IGD.". PCP does not provide such feature.

Je sais. That's why I asked, and please see below .

      On reading the value is 1, writing a value different from 1 is not
+ what if on reading the value is 0, which means deactivating the mapping?
[Med] see above. Only "1" is supported.
Here, I elaborate the question again.

Quotation from UPnP-gw-WANIPConnection-v2-Service spcification:

"Arguments for AddPortMapping() and AddAnyPortMapping() :

*Argument                       Direction           relatedStateVariable*
NewEnabled                   IN                      PortMappingEnabled

My concern was and is: with the current text, it doesn't look clear to me, how IGD should react when recieve a PortMappingEnabled valule of '0' from these two actions, which means that users want to disable the mapping.

"Arguments for GetGenericPortMappingEntry() GetGenericPortMappingEntry()
*Argument                       Direction           relatedStateVariable*
 NewEnabled                   OUT                  PortMappingEnabled

Don't see any problems for IGD with actions  (Get*) having this parameter for OUT direction.

[Med] Are you sure 718 error code is allowed for GetSpecificPortMappingEntry?
Good point. According to specification, no.
p.s. But I think anyway it would be interesting to do a test to see what will happen in that case. Come back to you soon later with the test results.