IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [pcp] Comparison of PCP authentication

james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com> Mon, 06 August 2012 23:03 UTC

Return-Path: <jhw@apple.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 D39AD21F846B for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Aug 2012 16:03:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.544
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.544 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.055, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yA9O7Nw1tgQO for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Aug 2012 16:03:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-out.apple.com (bramley.apple.com [17.151.62.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FDE721F8470 for <pcp@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Aug 2012 16:03:21 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET="US-ASCII"
Received: from relay16.apple.com ([17.128.113.55]) by mail-out.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7u4-23.01 (7.0.4.23.0) 64bit (built Aug 10 2011)) with ESMTP id <0M8C0042SW0AIJU9@mail-out.apple.com> for pcp@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Aug 2012 16:03:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: 11807137-b7f626d0000059a0-53-50204d33d6e5
Received: from kallisti.apple.com (kallisti.apple.com [17.193.13.64]) (using TLS with cipher AES128-SHA (AES128-SHA/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by relay16.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with SMTP id 6D.75.22944.43D40205; Mon, 06 Aug 2012 16:03:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>
In-reply-to: <57FF0F8E-1B86-410F-8B6B-C4893A28222F@lilacglade.org>
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 16:03:15 -0700
Message-id: <BB72B80F-0622-4A5B-A985-79D8AED13E0B@apple.com>
References: <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF653B6EC381@TK5EX14MBXW604.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> <7FE144CF-00E3-4451-8CBE-A6A684DB7CC4@yegin.org> <067d01cd73fd$765a6c50$630f44f0$@com> <D6D2DEED-C35A-45AB-8B72-96195C308DB9@yegin.org> <57FF0F8E-1B86-410F-8B6B-C4893A28222F@lilacglade.org>
To: pcp@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1485)
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFupnluLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42IRPMjroGviqxBgsOoOr8XkY79ZHRg9liz5 yRTAGMVlk5Kak1mWWqRvl8CV8WfWLuaCwzwVCz6tY25g7OLsYuTkkBAwkVjfd5wRwhaTuHBv PVsXIxeHkMBsJolnT++xgCSYBbQkbvx7yQRi8wroScxunwMWFxYwlphyaSNYnE1AReLb5btg NqeAk8SGxk3MIDYLUPzB/C2MEHO0JZYtfM0MMcdGon9vFzvEslVMEg/vbwIrEhEQkPi9+jIT xEWyEt8Pn2ebwMg3C8kds5DcMQvJ3AWMzKsYBYtScxIrDc30EgsKclL1kvNzNzGCgqmh0HwH 4/a/cocYBTgYlXh4KzgUAoRYE8uKK3MPMUpwMCuJ8DIxAIV4UxIrq1KL8uOLSnNSiw8xSnOw KInz/l0uFCAkkJ5YkpqdmlqQWgSTZeLglGpgVAzpe5og1z1LaGq+87yj4vXBQbwdV5ZVJzD8 XHCdZd77tfZWP2+c0C0rm3ya2TTrRXbR5Qq396tcee/pTHq11bvSe6Z+iGor8wvtx4qZvi2S RcGnQpQ+bF93/sqT7mwGw4dXt5nfKixPmnxh46lbu3nME0RWLZ+3sIjPoLsva0Xiq02tYT+e KbEUZyQaajEXFScCAHapTkciAgAA
Subject: Re: [pcp] Comparison of PCP authentication
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: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 23:03:23 -0000

On Aug 6, 2012, at 13:02 , Margaret Wasserman <mrw@lilacglade.org> wrote:
> 
> Do you know what existing PANA implementations will do if the "Reserved" field at the start of the packet is non-zero? 

A related question might be what existing NAT-PMP implementations will do if they receive a message containing a PANA packet.  Assuming they comply with I-D.cheshire-nat-pmp-03, they will interpret the first two octets of a PANA message as an announcement request, and they will reply with the announcement response message shown below.

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | Vers = 0      | OP = 128 + 0  | Result Code                   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | Seconds Since Start of Epoch                                  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | External IP Address (a.b.c.d)                                 |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

If a PCP server needs to implement NAT-PMP too, then it can easily distinguish a NAT-PMP announcement request from a PANA message, but one wonders if a PANA client expecting to authenticate to such a server can deal with replies from a NAT-PMP server that knows nothing about either PCP or NAT-PMP.


--
james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>
member of technical staff, core os networking

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email