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

Xiaohong Deng <dxhbupt@gmail.com> Fri, 24 August 2012 12:47 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 E343D21F86C7 for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 05:47:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.200, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799]
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 xw3w2e7RhM5K for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 05:47:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com (mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2BCE21F8501 for <pcp@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 05:47:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lahm15 with SMTP id m15so1165413lah.31 for <pcp@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 05:47:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=auR/hMX6kgbWm8JMQebBCyMSgw8OpFWQ8vOjlGjxwVc=; b=VXFoM+Wpfqlg50fT2QVs50OkJDrgWE01xZGmancpzmPKw0sROOPcS+BdETDI4p04UX mYe+/lfZLVTm5D0fniSL9gviao2wgUDqCdKxGLBJ33/jRnpq5bW73tz6DZp+VYMDPP0r 19ZuiLWPGiPqMLwK3dUzmRuQb3a2Ksb9zNWHpRP5VLDUTmU7Er5Tn+xs9e9Tknt8UHja KX6T+7RCJcNfs2X8j/3cXWfniNSlh86IJeZFqj2cKkBG3Ziu16qfMSCNvjlkvwTrQSf+ RkAKloRxJZZz6A9hHJs+fGp59zsKmWmcymjDq861e7Omgn7Xk7ry1lvIZJ9QX5/3o+9B fBiQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.152.46.209 with SMTP id x17mr5502033lam.38.1345812443435; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 05:47:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.43.196 with HTTP; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 05:47:23 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E512B4463@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
References: <CANb4OckhpkQH_Wkqyb1T6uuAO8ugLWZHHb_8L69DVe3bP8kUmQ@mail.gmail.com> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E4FC2DA35@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <CANb4OckhX8xWNKiFa8Dbi60Cdy-zjLaicDH8Z-yvgy3KbE_aSQ@mail.gmail.com> <CANb4OcnrE7Ntr6a1SiZskO=GfxkuY4DfD7etT2pAnMY6kXOPfQ@mail.gmail.com> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E512B4463@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 14:47:23 +0200
Message-ID: <CANb4Ock8XLCxm8vFt-6g-v6Bk_X5TNiaPhw32SUV9VH9FcfL3A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Xiaohong Deng <dxhbupt@gmail.com>
To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec550b3aea0110604c8026013
Cc: "pcp@ietf.org" <pcp@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-pcp-upnp-igd-interworking@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pcp-upnp-igd-interworking@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [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: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 12:47:26 -0000

Hi Med,

I prefer the wording in your explanation:

only "1" is allowed: i.e., the iwf is supposed to send back an error if not
set to 0.

Cheers,
Xiaohong

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 4:15 PM, <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>; wrote:

> **
> Hi Xiaohong,
>
> The current text says only "1" is allowed: i.e., the iwf is supposed to
> send back an error if not set to 0.
>
> If you have a better wording, this is welcome.
>
> Cheers,
> Med
>
>  ------------------------------
> *De :* Xiaohong Deng [mailto:dxhbupt@gmail.com]
> *Envoyé :* vendredi 17 août 2012 15:50
> *À :* draft-ietf-pcp-upnp-igd-interworking@tools.ietf.org; pcp@ietf.org;
> BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP
> *Objet :* Re: [pcp] Review of draft-ietf-pcp-upnp-igd-interworking
>
>  Hi Med,
>
> Thanks for your efficient feedback.
>
> Please see inline. Now focus only on unsolved ones.
>
>  On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:24 AM, <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>; wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>    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.
>> [Med] IGD spec says "PortMappingEnabled: This variable allows security
>> conscious users to disable and enable dynamic NAT port mappings on the IGD.". PCP
>> does not provide such feature.
>>
>>
>> Je sais. That's why I asked, and please see below .
>
>>
>>
>>
>>       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?
>> [Med] see above. Only "1" is supported.
>>
>> Here, I elaborate the question again.
>
> Quotation from UPnP-gw-WANIPConnection-v2-Service spcification:
>
> "Arguments for AddPortMapping() and AddAnyPortMapping() :
>
> *Argument                       Direction           relatedStateVariable*
> ...
> NewEnabled                   IN                      PortMappingEnabled
> ..."
>
> My concern was and is: with the current text, it doesn't look clear to me,
> how IGD should react when recieve a PortMappingEnabled valule of '0' from
> these two actions, which means that users want to disable the mapping.
>
>
> "Arguments for GetGenericPortMappingEntry() GetGenericPortMappingEntry()
> *Argument                       Direction           relatedStateVariable*
> ...
>  NewEnabled                   OUT                  PortMappingEnabled
> ..."
>
> Don't see any problems for IGD with actions  (Get*) having this parameter
> for OUT direction.
>
>
>
>   [Med] Are you sure 718 error code is allowed for
>> GetSpecificPortMappingEntry?
>>
>> Good point. According to specification, no.
> p.s. But I think anyway it would be interesting to do a test to see what
> will happen in that case. Come back to you soon later with the test results.
>
> Cheers,
> Xiaohong
>
>
>