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

[Xiaohong Deng <[e-mail]>]

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, <[e-mail]> 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:[e-mail]]
> *Envoyé :* vendredi 17 août 2012 15:50
> *À :* [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> 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, <[e-mail]> 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
>
>
>