IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [pcp] Ensuring Address Reuse In the Pinhole Control Protocol (PCP)

"Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> Tue, 19 October 2010 00:13 UTC

Return-Path: <dwing@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: pcp@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pcp@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCFC53A6A93 for <pcp@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Oct 2010 17:13:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.563
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.563 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.036, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KeUd36eMOO3c for <pcp@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Oct 2010 17:13:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF0333A6C22 for <pcp@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Oct 2010 17:13:13 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-6.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EAB+AvEyrRN+J/2dsb2JhbACUdIxacaY9nFmFSQSEVA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.57,347,1283731200"; d="scan'208";a="606079887"
Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.223.137]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 19 Oct 2010 00:14:40 +0000
Received: from dwingWS ([10.32.240.194]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o9J0Ee9A008966; Tue, 19 Oct 2010 00:14:40 GMT
From: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
To: 'Tina TSOU' <tena@huawei.com>, pcp@ietf.org
References: <07A90FBB-EB5F-4623-A455-E9DF251138BF@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <07A90FBB-EB5F-4623-A455-E9DF251138BF@huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 17:14:40 -0700
Message-ID: <322301cb6f22$9f900c60$deb02520$@com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Acts+x2idGb2vIm5QaaNhdYivdUG1ACJzKhQ
Content-Language: en-us
Subject: Re: [pcp] Ensuring Address Reuse In the Pinhole Control Protocol (PCP)
X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: PCP wg discussion list <pcp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 00:13:41 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pcp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Tina TSOU
> Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 11:26 PM
> To: pcp@ietf.org
> Subject: [pcp] Ensuring Address Reuse In the Pinhole Control Protocol
> (PCP)
> 
> Hi PCPers,
> An I-D "Ensuring Address Reuse In the Pinhole Control Protocol (PCP)"
> was posted just now.
> 
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-tsou-pcp-address-modify-00.txt
> 
> 
> Abstract
> 
>    This document proposes that a field be added to the PIN-REQUEST
>    message in the Pinhole Control Protocol to ask that the new mapping
>    being requested reuse the same external address already assigned to
>    the requesting device.  The actual form of this new field is
>    discussed within the document.

The problem described is not solely with PCP.  The same problem would
also occur when different TCP SYNs are mapped to a different public
IPv4 address.  I believe that REQ-1 of
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-00#section-3
establishes a requirement that solves this for both PCP and non-PCP
mappings.  Do you agree?

-d

> 
> Good night.
> 
> 
> B. R.
> Tina
> http://tinatsou.weebly.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email