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

Xiaohong Deng <> Fri, 17 August 2012 13:50 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5788521F8467 for <>; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 06:50:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.065
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.065 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.266, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id clBiG-aA8XEu for <>; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 06:50:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24A6121F844D for <>; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 06:50:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lbbgg6 with SMTP id gg6so2218815lbb.31 for <>; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 06:50:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=udIaR0TV8SO/WJVs3CHwys99W5nGsi1rIDqDTMkrk4o=; b=F67tpst8yQGcJsBcQ0PsXQZ8bopWd5QuAp/+fONIxHJ2/jhKt/S3+9GY9N5AK/i/Hn 0guOSId6kR+SWmak4nE2QNegwtd4uDrLJjykFWFxpTe7Jy2HQyEZoUvn03n03Jequ/5q JzGLaen5KxgkWUktNo5nDKLITg11a5CgFDROOBpe5/XcLIcT/8hy2JBxswdCOvlPUwcv 8gu4znZwPrpCJp0bBuBOc3AQyKo0SiYa/cj65eMSR6RdljhcocK7O3ObnOO3gh02Yxaf TjlnYH+l4QJEt5UzTCgaHBnJc4DzBb+46OojoGX1TLwFUfv0SjUiNiILuisbAl5zxbxq s2Tg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id n6mr2247183lbb.82.1345211408984; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 06:50:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 06:50:08 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:50:08 +0200
Message-ID: <>
From: Xiaohong Deng <>
To:,, "<>" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e0cb4efe326c2e2ca904c7767056
Subject: Re: [pcp] Review of draft-ietf-pcp-upnp-igd-interworking
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: PCP wg discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 13:50:11 -0000

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, <>; 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.