Re: [pcp] WGLC: draft-ietf-pcp-base-12.txt
"Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> Sun, 05 June 2011 00:49 UTC
Return-Path: <dwing@cisco.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 800C111E8072 for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 4 Jun 2011 17:49:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -108
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-108 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id InxMMk7u5JUT for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 4 Jun 2011 17:49:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53B8F11E8071 for <pcp@ietf.org>; Sat, 4 Jun 2011 17:49:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=dwing@cisco.com; l=4148; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1307234966; x=1308444566; h=from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=3B8K83aAKQdv5vQoQ/eOGJ0fGF1T0rZM5XtTgZlrVCs=; b=SimqrAig8a+Z49uNqGyJuZRLZwakuDGwjoAluPhRDH4/C6LgMGmawFKt PB//gTa4Mdu9zlLKLOMtRis3Ka+SOdTkvrRjzD0R/UyqT23G+4DpIetBu XCdKQoLopvu1SN/GWfG8fDVlLTmsFnbfg6CxSuCdeKGDoc7nFGV3k1CdP s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhYBAKPR6k2rRDoG/2dsb2JhbABTl2eBZox6d4hxoCicaYYhBIZ0mV8
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,321,1304294400"; d="scan'208";a="459863198"
Received: from mtv-core-1.cisco.com ([171.68.58.6]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 Jun 2011 00:49:25 +0000
Received: from dwingWS ([10.32.240.194]) by mtv-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p550nPPT028119; Sun, 5 Jun 2011 00:49:25 GMT
From: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
To: 'Tina Tsou' <tena@huawei.com>, 'Dave Thaler' <dthaler@microsoft.com>, pcp@ietf.org
References: <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF653B0BA0FD@TK5EX14MBXW604.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF653B0E7836@TK5EX14MBXW601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> <01bb01cc2277$eb072b70$c1158250$@com>
In-Reply-To: <01bb01cc2277$eb072b70$c1158250$@com>
Date: Sat, 04 Jun 2011 17:49:25 -0700
Message-ID: <04d801cc231a$6b2747c0$4175d740$@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: AcwXKk61FuyajK7hRbulosJtjQ9K5wK/sVTgABOocjAAKHAzUA==
Content-Language: en-us
Subject: Re: [pcp] WGLC: draft-ietf-pcp-base-12.txt
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: Sun, 05 Jun 2011 00:49:27 -0000
> -----Original Message----- > From: pcp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Tina Tsou > Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 10:26 PM > To: 'Dave Thaler'; pcp@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [pcp] WGLC: draft-ietf-pcp-base-12.txt > > Dear all, > In section7, there is one description: > "It is REQUIRED that the PCP-controlled device assign the same > external IP address to PCP-created explicit dynamic mappings and to > implicit dynamic mappings." > It is only a requirement to CGN, but some existing CGN may not support > this requirement as defined in RFC4787-[REQ1]: > "Some NATs use the external IP address mapping in an arbitrary fashion > (i.e., randomly): one internal IP address could have multiple > external IP address mappings active at the same time for different > sessions" You quoted non-normative text; later in that same section of RFC4787 it explains how random ("Arbitrary") assignment causes harm. REQ-2 says that "paired" is RECOMMENDED. > Therefore, I suggest the PCP client should also support this > requirement which was actually defined in 00 version but deleted in > later versions (maybe I missed the reason of the text change): > If there is any existing PCP mapping, PCP client should only request > the same external IP address as the one of those existing mappings. The > reason is that it will allow applications that use multiple ports > originating from the same internal IP address to also have the same > external IP address. We (the NAT and PCP server) can't know if, when there is an implicit dynamic connection from a host's source port, that connection was done by the same application as the explicit mapping, or if the OS happened to assign that source port to some other (unrelated) application. If the NAT is EIM, it will reuse the same mapping it already has. Because that is the definition of being a EIM NAT. And it is important that all implicit dynamic mappings use the same public IPv4 address (for all the reasons stated in the existing UDP and TCP RFCs). We don't want PCP to make that situation worse because some other un-related application did a MAP request. If it is a non-EIM NAT, I suppose there is a way to use separate pools, if the non-EIM NAT applies some sort of logic to the implicit sessions -- the logic described in #2 of http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pcp-base-12#section-11.1 If you want/need that, please provide text. But I fear the interaction that is created if non-EIM NAT could create mappings on arbitrary IP addresses while EIM NAT creates mappings on the same IP address. For example, if an application was tested with an EIM NAT (which always assigns PCP-created mappings and implicit mappings to the same external IP address), that application may well fail when deployed behind a non-EIM NAT that (a) allocates different IP addresses for different PCP mappings or (b) different IP addresses for PCP mappings versus implicit dynamic mappings. -d > > Have a good weekend. > > We keep our promises with one another - no matter what! > > Best Regards, > Tina TSOU > http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html > > From: pcp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Dave Thaler > Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 1:02 PM > To: pcp@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [pcp] WGLC: draft-ietf-pcp-base-12.txt > > Some comments on -12 are in the marked up copy at > http://research.microsoft.com/users/dthaler/draft-ietf-pcp-base-12.pdf > > -Dave > > From: pcp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Dave Thaler > Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 1:18 PM > To: pcp@ietf.org > Subject: [pcp] WGLC: draft-ietf-pcp-base-12.txt > > This message starts a two-week WGLC on > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pcp-base-12.txt > > This last call will conclude on June 3rd at 5pm EST. > > Please send your comments to the list. > > We are scheduling a WebEx call shortly after the WGLC concludes, > and will send out details in separate email. > > Thanks, > -Dave and Alain > >
- Re: [pcp] WGLC: draft-ietf-pcp-base-12.txt Dan Wing
- Re: [pcp] WGLC: draft-ietf-pcp-base-12.txt Paul Selkirk
- [pcp] WGLC: draft-ietf-pcp-base-12.txt Dave Thaler
- Re: [pcp] WGLC: draft-ietf-pcp-base-12.txt Alain Durand
- Re: [pcp] WGLC: draft-ietf-pcp-base-12.txt Dave Thaler
- Re: [pcp] WGLC: draft-ietf-pcp-base-12.txt Tina Tsou
- Re: [pcp] WGLC: draft-ietf-pcp-base-12.txt Dan Wing
- Re: [pcp] WGLC: draft-ietf-pcp-base-12.txt Stuart Cheshire
- Re: [pcp] WGLC: draft-ietf-pcp-base-12.txt Tina Tsou
- [pcp] PCP Issue #24, PCP mappings same public IP … Dan Wing
- Re: [pcp] WGLC: draft-ietf-pcp-base-12.txt Francis Dupont
- Re: [pcp] PCP Issue #24, PCP mappings same public… Tina Tsou