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

"Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)" <tireddy@cisco.com> Wed, 12 September 2012 14:06 UTC

Return-Path: <tireddy@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A0D121F862B for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 07:06:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.799
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 87pAszs4++cc for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 07:06:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D656721F860E for <pcp@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 07:06:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=7388; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1347458807; x=1348668407; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=oRFohQnOEBMlDdL5oxQn/WZo1gV+3zAQfPBWz3OqZ5M=; b=gSJSB09PPy1rPmfu0zDwl/g2lJ0u70PAZt9SX10yiz9hqqoHljAjyQ8D HaQJJQzfpvsKeybuwOeOmDRSX1WmQfB7EQ5/dAtsyYU0BegZZqZEPp3R9 g0suG6faTXN33MFpkKSbokq82iAoZyEyD3irbaA/107UXzv3N6GpSc0Bf k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av4EAOyVUFCtJV2Y/2dsb2JhbABFgku4dYEHgiIBBBIBGkwSASpWJgEEDg0ah2ucL6BEkHJgA6QVgWmCZoIX
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.80,410,1344211200"; d="scan'208,217"; a="120834089"
Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Sep 2012 14:06:47 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com []) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q8CE6lak007093 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 12 Sep 2012 14:06:47 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([]) by xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 09:06:46 -0500
From: "Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)" <tireddy@cisco.com>
To: "mohamed.boucadair@orange.com" <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
Thread-Topic: Review of draft-ietf-pcp-upnp-igd-interworking
Thread-Index: Ac2Q79Y6YXBrvo9gTweL2JiIKG8WUg==
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 14:06:45 +0000
Message-ID: <913383AAA69FF945B8F946018B75898A147A3B2F@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-
x-tm-as-result: No--35.283800-8.000000-31
x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No
x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_913383AAA69FF945B8F946018B75898A147A3B2Fxmbrcdx10ciscoc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "pcp@ietf.org" <pcp@ietf.org>
Subject: [pcp] Review of draft-ietf-pcp-upnp-igd-interworking
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: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 14:06:54 -0000

Hi Med -

[1] Section 5.8
   If the port is not in use, the mapping will be
   created by the PCP Server and a positive response will be sent back
   to the IGD-PCP IWF.  Once received by the IGD-PCP IWF, it MUST relay
   a negative message to the UPnP Control Point indicating
   NoSuchEntryInArray as error code.

Comment> Should the IGD-PCP IWF delete the MAP binding after this operation ?

[2] Section 5.9
  A PCP MAP delete response is sent back if the removal of the corresponding
  entry was successful; if not, a PCP Error is sent back to the IGD-PCP
  Interworking Function including the corresponding error cause (See
  Section 4.3).

comment > you may want to conclude that the corresponding success/error codes will be returned to the UPnP Control Point.

[3]Section 5.9

      It is unlikely to encounter a problem in the PCP leg
      because the IWF has verified authorization rights and also the
      presence of the mapping in the local table.

Comment> Just a corner case, What if the PCP server crashes or loses its state after only processing the first request ?

[4]Section 5.10

   In case an error is encountered during mapping renewal, the IGD-PCP
   Interworking Function has no means to inform the UPnP CP.

Comment > why not set PortMappingLeaseDuration to the lifetime value returned by the PCP server ?

[5] For Security considerations - If the UPnP supports PCP interworking function then it should block internal hosts from sending PCP requests to the PCP server directly.

Generic error cases :

[6] What if NAT2 just supports or permits PEER and not MAP request ?
[7] what will IGD-PCP do if it receives ANNOUNCE from NAT2 ?