[v6ops] Re: Traffic control protocols (PCP and UPnP IGD)

["Kawashima Masanobu(川島 正伸)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi all, 

> In today’s v6ops meeting there was mention of UPnP. Having a way for client
> devices to signal to network infrastructure what traffic they want to receive is a
> good idea. However, doing that using the UPnP IGD protocol would be a
> disastrously bad idea.

I agree with having a way for client devices to signal to network infrastructure. 
However, I'm still not sure UPnP IGD is bad idea. 

As you may know, Broadband Forum has released TR-124 issue 9 on July 2024. 
https://rg-device-requirements.broadband-forum.org/index.htm 

Related parts are as follows. 

[WAN.PCP.1] 
 The RG MUST support Port Control Protocol (PCP) Client as specified in RFC 6887

[WAN.PCP.7] 
 The RG MUST embed an interworking function to ensure interworking between the UPnP IGD (Internet Gateway Device) used by CPE LAN devices in the LAN and PCP as defined in RFC 6970

[MGMT.UPnP.IGD.ACRF.1] 
The RG MUST support UPnP Internet Gateway Device:2 root device. This specification is available for download at http://upnp.org/specs/gw/UPnP-gw-InternetGatewayDevice-v2-Device.pdf

As one of CE router vendor, what should I do? 
Should I ignore TR-124 because UPnP will be deprecated soon? 
or should we mention UPnP in some form in RFC 7084bis? 

As I commented on v6ops WG meeting a while ago, UPnP IGDv2(for IPv6) is increasing in Japan. 
Because our CE router support it, and some gaming title support UPnP controll point as well. 
Syncthing(file sharing app) has also supported UPnP IGDv2. 
Addition to this, we also recognized UPnP IGDv2 implementation increasing in some countries. 

Please let me know your opinion. 

Regards, 
Masanobu 

======================== 
 NEC Platforms, Ltd.                  
 KAWASHIMA Masanobu              
 [e-mail]          
 https://www.necplatforms.co.jp/en/    
========================



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stuart Cheshire <cheshire=[e-mail]>
> Sent: Friday, July 26, 2024 5:33 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: [v6ops] Traffic control protocols (PCP and UPnP IGD)
> 
> In today’s v6ops meeting there was mention of UPnP. Having a way for client
> devices to signal to network infrastructure what traffic they want to receive is a
> good idea. However, doing that using the UPnP IGD protocol would be a
> disastrously bad idea.
> 
> For a list of the many flaws of UPnP IGD see RFC 6886:
> 
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6886#section-9>
> 
> This is why the IETF needed to create a robust reliable protocol for doing this, Port
> Control Protocol:
> 
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6887>
> 
> If an IETF document is going to recommend or require a way of doing this, it should
> be using RFC 6887, both because that is an IETF Standards Track protocol, and
> (more importantly) because of the technical merits of that protocol.
> 
> If the UPnP organization still existed then maybe they could try to design a
> replacement for IGD that works reliably, but what would be the point when the
> IETF has already done that?
> 
> Stuart Cheshire
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]