[pcp] On the interaction between PCP sever and NAT (or multiple NATs)

" 宋林健 " <songlinjian@163.com> Thu, 14 October 2010 03:36 UTC

Return-Path: <songlinjian@163.com>
X-Original-To: pcp@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pcp@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6B203A6A5E for <pcp@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 20:36:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 4.677
X-Spam-Level: ****
X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.677 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.024, BAYES_50=0.001, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, J_CHICKENPOX_33=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_42=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s2GarEvWPsNd for <pcp@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 20:35:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from m50-135.163.com (m50-135.163.com [123.125.50.135]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1462F3A68B8 for <pcp@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 20:34:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slj (unknown [219.243.215.210]) by smtp5 (Coremail) with SMTP id D9GowLAbtABMerZMBAtsAw--.4105S2; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 11:34:38 +0800 (CST)
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 11:36:52 +0800
From: 宋林健 <songlinjian@163.com>
To: pcp <pcp@ietf.org>
Organization: bupt
X-mailer: Foxmail 5.0 [cn]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-CM-TRANSID: D9GowLAbtABMerZMBAtsAw--.4105S2
X-Coremail-Antispam: 1Uf129KBjvJXoW7CryDJr1DJw18Kw4ktw4fZrb_yoW8KrWDpF 4DKF40yan3G34DAry7A3WDZr15XF1kK3yrCr13Jry0yws8C3W8tFyjy34UZFy8J34ftr4Y vrWjqrn5u3W5ArJanT9S1TB71UUUUUUqnTZGkaVYY2UrUUUUjbIjqfuFe4nvWSU5nxnvy2 9KBjDUYxBIdaVFxhVjvjDU0xZFpf9x07j5Aw3UUUUU=
Message-Id: <4CB67A53.78DC56.21897@m50-135.163.com>
X-CM-SenderInfo: pvrqwz5lqmxtrq6rljoofrz/1tbiTBpq30j9juRb2wAAs8
Subject: [pcp] On the interaction between PCP sever and NAT (or multiple NATs)
X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: songlinjian@163.com
List-Id: PCP wg discussion list <pcp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 03:39:27 -0000

Hi,ALL

	 In "draft-wing-softwire-port-control-protocol-02" the Fig.2 shows that the NAT devices can work with separate PCP Server. But I only find the detailed specification between the PCP server and clients. The interation between PCP server and NAT is obscure and the suggested xml-style communication is not clear. How dose it works? Based on TCP,UDP or other mature transmission technology? what information should it contain ?

Below is some question and considerations on the interation between PCP sever and NAT. Comments and suggestions are welcome and appreciated.

1.Is the interation between PCP server and NAT private or public ?  In another word,is it possible that PCP server and NAT are producted by differnt network equipment vendors. IF we expect two devices from different vendors can work together without trouble, the specification of the interation is necessary.

2. In the PCP draft, NAT device only receives address binding information from PCP server. Is there any message that NAT should tell PCP server? Intuitively, PCP server should detect the failure of NAT device, expecially in multiple NATs scenario. Tranditional  echo or 'hello' protocol is available. on the purpose redundancy and load-balancing the NAT group id and the current load is expected to be known by PCP server. (plz see 3)

3. Can a single PCP server interact with multiple NATs? Because the reliability is very important for CGN devices, mulitple NATs is highly desireable for both load balacing and redundancy. If the multiple NAT scenario makes sense in PCP context, the specification of the interation should be more carefully designed.
plz see http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-behave-stateful-nat-standby-04 and http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wang-behave-nat64-load-balancer-02 for more information    

4.TCP or UDP? I'm not sure about that part. If reliable connection is need between PCP server and NAT ,TCP is prefered.





Best regards.   2010-10-14

********************************************************
*    Linjian Song ,Ph.D candidate                      *
*    Department of Computer Science & Technology       *
*    Tsinghua University, Beijing, P.R.China(100084)   *
*    Tel: (8610)-62795818-6864                         *
*    Email: songlinjian@csnet1.cs.tsinghua.edu.cn      *
********************************************************