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

[Xiaohong Deng <[e-mail]>]

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