[pcp] Review of draft-ietf-pcp-upnp-igd-interworking
Xiaohong Deng <dxhbupt@gmail.com> Tue, 14 August 2012 19:48 UTC
Return-Path: <dxhbupt@gmail.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 9F49221E8086 for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 12:48:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.399, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3rkNIWJN7ppe for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 12:48:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com (mail-lb0-f172.google.com [209.85.217.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E52221E8063 for <pcp@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 12:48:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lbbgg6 with SMTP id gg6so489644lbb.31 for <pcp@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 12:48:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=WG77c8AFJllc7vk+jxLyLXLSqV5wbE6K2t5qZew+qAY=; b=xaR6KhuHHr7wpTTIyk0LgLXkyxDKDeOMVSz0xFzBtMmD67M6riAMk2eTZnEpgsBMna rGxeddmKc8sbIPbCx3/x/kHjmpf0FKI0nO1Wk3hSUQFiRaYdTr05pJSc82rAjQB0vv7j gOncIdHMOe6CtA0VO4qdr5GiZI9sAB5nWIv57ZnH2VgYoxHn2V84mG2p+YtpJsDvsm4/ /91GyNMIpXZXRVMpLqX91PNP3P6NERNmS5WrrF9J1KcYABmwcGU5UZJpsKQD+S9cdA87 niXKMA59dgGRNh7Mad2hLBiGrq7cIIBQhDbe/4bNZlIgTCTii9cNPIl4u5ADM9fQZvmc KBmg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.112.46.9 with SMTP id r9mr8469151lbm.81.1344973701999; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 12:48:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.43.196 with HTTP; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 12:48:21 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 21:48:21 +0200
Message-ID: <CANb4OckhpkQH_Wkqyb1T6uuAO8ugLWZHHb_8L69DVe3bP8kUmQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Xiaohong Deng <dxhbupt@gmail.com>
To: draft-ietf-pcp-upnp-igd-interworking@tools.ietf.org, pcp@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f46d0401236fbd6c7b04c73f17f5"
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: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 19:48:24 -0000
Hello authors and WG, Here is my review of draft-ietf-pcp-upnp-igd-interworking-02. Overall I think the draft is in a good shape, neat, easy to follow, and has a good architecture for WGLC. Below are a couple of questions and thoughts on text. Two types of them: the ones begin with +, are ones that, in my point of view, are worth to be addressed, and the ones begin with *, are minor ones that may make no significant difference. In both cases if I miss something, please elaborate and clarify. Thanks. Interworking Function (IGD-PCP IWF) is required to be embedded in CP + CP -> Customer Premises (CP) Triggers for deactivating the UPnP IGD-PCP Interworking Function from the IGD and relying on a PCP-only mode are out of scope of this + I’m not sure I understand exactly "Triggers for deactivating the UPnP IGD-PCP Interworking Function". what does that exactly mean? Deactivating the whole IWF or IGD? (1) Section 4.1 provides the mapping between WANIPConnection State Variables and PCP parameters; + would suggest using‘correspondence’ than ‘mapping’, as no mappings required to store in IGD for that, and also for lowering confusion with NAT mappings on a per UPnP CP basis. + UPnP CP -> UPnP Control Point? There are two 'CP' exit in the document, which I suppose stand for different things respectively. PortMappingEnabled: 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. On reading the value is 1, writing a value different from 1 is not supported. + what if on reading the value is 0, which means deactivating the mapping? Point, it must be resolved to an IP address by the Interworking Function when relying the message to the PCP Server. + Must? Does this mean IWF must have a DNS resolving function also? 6 MALFORMED_OPTION: 501 "ActionFailed" Should not happen. *It may happen when IWF is not correctly implemented, mistached version of implementation with PCP server, and extra. 7 NETWORK_FAILURE: Not applicable Should not happen after communication was successfully established with a PCP Server. *What if IWF/PCP Client fails to establish communication with a PCP server? In that case, I see that "ActionFailed" looks like the semantical correspondence. Note: According to some experiments, some UPnP 1.0 implementations, e.g., uTorrent, simply try the same external port X times (usually 4 times) and then fail. Also note that some applications uses GetSpecificPortMapping() to check whether a mapping exists. *Behavior of uTorrent is more like following: it tries GetSpecificPortMapping X times (usually 4 times),if it finds an external port not being used before X times, it will call AddPortMapping Upon receipt of GetSpecificPortMappingEntry() from a UPnP Control Point, the IGD-PCP IWF MUST check first if the external port number is used by the requesting UPnP Control Point. If the external port is already in use by the requesting UPnP Control Point, the IGD-PCP IWF MUST send back a positive answer. If not, the IGD-PCP IWF MUST *or more precisely: IWF MUST send back mapping entires specified by the unique tuple of ExternalPort and PortMappingProtocol. relay to the PCP Server a MAP request, with short lifetime (e.g., 60s), including a PREFER_FAILURE Option. If the requested external port is in use, a PCP error message will be sent by the PCP Server to the IGD-PCP IWF indicating CANNOT_PROVIDE_EXTERNAL as the error cause. Then, the IGD-PCP IWF relays a negative message to the UPnP Control Point. If the port is not in use, the mapping will be + if CANNOT-PROVIDE_EXTERNAL is returned from PCP server, it means the enquired external port is being used: for example, enquired external port is being used by another customer sharing the same external IP. Since one of major usage of GetSpecificPortMappingEntry() is for UPnP control point to find out if an external port is available, how about using 718 "ConflictInMappingEntry"? which, to my eyes, provides a better semantic in this context. 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. *Since this is a somehow complicated to be understood case, add something like below may make it slightly clearer: it MUST relay a negative message to the UPnP Control Point indicating NoSuchEntryInArray as error code so that the UPnP control point knows the enquired mapping doesn't exist. Cheers, -Xiaohong <http://fr.linkedin.com/pub/xiaohong-deng/28/577/599>
- [pcp] Review of draft-ietf-pcp-upnp-igd-interwork… Xiaohong Deng
- Re: [pcp] Review of draft-ietf-pcp-upnp-igd-inter… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [pcp] Review of draft-ietf-pcp-upnp-igd-inter… Xiaohong Deng
- Re: [pcp] Review of draft-ietf-pcp-upnp-igd-inter… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [pcp] Review of draft-ietf-pcp-upnp-igd-inter… Xiaohong Deng
- Re: [pcp] Review of draft-ietf-pcp-upnp-igd-inter… mohamed.boucadair
- [pcp] Review of draft-ietf-pcp-upnp-igd-interwork… Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)
- Re: [pcp] Review of draft-ietf-pcp-upnp-igd-inter… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [pcp] Review of draft-ietf-pcp-upnp-igd-inter… Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)
- Re: [pcp] Review of draft-ietf-pcp-upnp-igd-inter… mohamed.boucadair