Re: [pcp] Issue Analysis of PCP in Mobile Network was (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-chen-pcp-mobile-deployment-01.txt)

["Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi -

1. Section 2.1
Can you please clarify what kind of applications on Mobile devices would require port range on Firewall ?
MAP/PEER cannot be used to request Firewall to open a range of ports (other than "all ports")

I am not sure what you mean by resource saving on the "Firewall node" - clarify

2. Section 5
There is similar problem in PMIPv6 with multiple APN.  But with IPv6, MN will be assigned prefixes from multiple APN (using SLAAC). Firewall may be located only in the Internet-APN. In case of IPv4, MAG can act as PCP Server to the Mobile Node and MAG will have act as PCP Proxy and propagate the PCP request to PCP Server in appropriate APN.  More clarity is required on this section.

2. Section 7
   Thus a PCP server SHOULD take care to throttle unicast ANNOUNCE
   messages it sends towards a collection of MN.

Comment>
Yes, this is a problem. For example RA throttle is dealt using the technique in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thubert-savi-ra-throttler-01
For example dedicated RA is unicast to each of the associated devices as opposed to sent once as a layer 2 broadcast to all devices in a single shot.
What is the plan to address such problem for ANNOUNCE ? 
For e.g. permit ANNOUNCE only on selected trusted ports.

3. Section 9

   Because the UE has been authenticated to the MGW during context setup, if the MGW
   delegates its trust to the NAT/FW device (PCP server), the NAT/FW
   device can trust the PCP requests from those users.

Comment>
I guess if the Mobile network combines UE authentication with MGW + ingress filtering (to prevent IP address spoofing, there may not be a need for explicit PCP authentication). Refer to section 17.3.2 in base PCP spec.

--Tiru.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: GangChen [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 9:25 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: [pcp] Issue Analysis of PCP in Mobile Network was (Fwd: New
> Version Notification for draft-chen-pcp-mobile-deployment-01.txt)
> 
> Hello all,
> 
> We had a discussion of PCP in mobile context at last IETF meeting.
> This work was encouraged to continue the analysis of major issues when
> PCP is adopted in a mobile environment.
> Considering very specific features in mobile network, we made a
> thorough study to current PCP protocol design.
> Several typical issues have been pointed.
> PCP applicability to these issues is further presented in the memo.
> The authors would seek your reviews and comments.
> Hope the work is of value to the community.
> 
> Best Regards
> 
> Authors of PCP-mobile
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: [e-mail]
> Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 08:17:46 -0700
> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-chen-pcp-mobile-deployment-
> 01.txt
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail],
> [e-mail], [e-mail]
> 
> 
> A new version of I-D, draft-chen-pcp-mobile-deployment-01.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Gang Chen and posted to the
> IETF repository.
> 
> Filename:	 draft-chen-pcp-mobile-deployment
> Revision:	 01
> Title:		 Analysis of Port Control Protocol in Mobile Network
> Creation date:	 2012-07-16
> WG ID:		 Individual Submission
> Number of pages: 14
> URL:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-chen-pcp-mobile-deployment-
> 01.txt
> Status:
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-pcp-mobile-deployment
> Htmlized:        http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chen-pcp-mobile-
> deployment-01
> Diff:
> http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-chen-pcp-mobile-deployment-01
> 
> Abstract:
>    This memo provides a motivation description for the Port Control
>    Protocol (PCP) deployment in a 3GPP mobile network environment.  The
>    document focuses on a mobile network specific issues (e.g. cell
> phone
>    battery power consumption, keep-alive traffic reduction), PCP
>    applicability to these issues is further studied and analysed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The IETF Secretariat