Re: [pcp] draft-ietf-pcp-proxy-01

"Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)" <tireddy@cisco.com> Fri, 21 December 2012 06:42 UTC

Return-Path: <tireddy@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89A1421F8AC1 for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 22:42:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OLc1TY3Nr8lz for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 22:42:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2E7221F8ABF for <pcp@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 22:42:58 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2372; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1356072179; x=1357281779; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=VTBSYwKon7wNw9cdGujbLLft6uE0AdUpgH+7Ue/tuv4=; b=LanvT2IwexKMuvGbjQzI0GvamPyjkq3+4GwLmLKfqdyq7QSNmGkz3dVn x7ex2HuRHrTVbQgWze8kAuckzcvxUEnRZD2rVBavLVyFELC8x+hyik9g+ l9T8Se2s4PncjqImnhFV9BIG2BNkbKQq5ovCmL5RSozR4UeGfIGP0RVir 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhMFAO0D1FCtJV2Z/2dsb2JhbABEg226BxZzgh4BAQEEAQEBNzQXBgEIEQEDAQELFAkuCxQDBgoEARIIAYgKBwW3OoxXg2JhA5cnjyyCdIIi
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,328,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="155355506"
Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 Dec 2012 06:42:57 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x14.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x14.cisco.com [173.36.12.88]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qBL6gvCL002852 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 21 Dec 2012 06:42:57 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([169.254.15.128]) by xhc-aln-x14.cisco.com ([173.36.12.88]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 00:42:57 -0600
From: "Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)" <tireddy@cisco.com>
To: "mohamed.boucadair@orange.com" <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>, "pcp@ietf.org" <pcp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [pcp] draft-ietf-pcp-proxy-01
Thread-Index: AQHN3uybfXVjAbB6bU6t4S6LHaLs+ZgizVgw
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 06:42:56 +0000
Message-ID: <913383AAA69FF945B8F946018B75898A148C07A6@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.65.81.251]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [pcp] draft-ietf-pcp-proxy-01
X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: PCP wg discussion list <pcp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pcp>, <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pcp>
List-Post: <mailto:pcp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp>, <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 06:42:59 -0000

Hi Med,

Comments

[1] Section 3 PCP Server Discovery and Provisioning : 
You may also want to add details that PCP Proxy would use similar mechanism just like PCP client to discover the PCP server.

[2] Section 5 Control of the Firewall : 
Firewall rules would be typically to block any unsolicited traffic from outside to inside. For PCP request/response this will not be a problem, but would have issues with unsolicited ANNOUNCE. In this case PCP Authentication looks mandatory to handle man-in-middle attacks trying to act as PCP Server.

[3] Section 5 : Replace REMOTE_PEER_FILTER with FILTER option

[4] Section 8 MAP/PEER handling : you may also want to clarify PCP proxy behavior when PCP client uses THIRD_PARTY option.

[5] Section 10.1 Multiple PCP servers : There could be another scenarios that PCP proxy would forward the PCP request to one of the PCP servers depending on the fields set in PCP request (for specific use cases please refer to http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rpcw-pcp-pmipv6-serv-discovery-00 , http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chen-pcp-mobile-deployment-02#section-8)]

[6] How is it ensured that only the PCP proxy can communicate with the PCP server and not any other PCP client ?

--Tiru.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pcp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 5:33 PM
> To: pcp@ietf.org
> Subject: [pcp] draft-ietf-pcp-proxy-01
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> A new version is now available online:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pcp-proxy-01
> 
> The main changes in -01 are as follows:
> 
> * The reference architecture is updated: the PCP proxy is not restricted to
> the CP router deployment case.
> * Add a new section to specify the behaviour when the PCP Proxy is not
> co-located with a NAT function
> * Add a new section for mappings repair
> * More discussion for the multiple PCP Servers scenario
> * Text is cleanup
> 
> A detailed diff is available here:
> 
>  http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pcp-proxy-01
> 
> Please review this new version and provide input.
> 
> Cheers,
> Med
> _______________________________________________
> pcp mailing list
> pcp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp