wiki:WikiStart

Version 44 (modified by rapenno@…, 9 years ago) (diff)

--

PCP Working Group

Interim Meeting Info

Agenda:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pcp-proxy-03 - Dan Wing - 25 minutes

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cheshire-pcp-unsupp-family - Stuart Cheshire - 30 minutes

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-penno-pcp-ext-addr - Reinaldo Penno - 25 minutes

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-perreault-softwire-lw4over6-pcp-00 - Simon Perreault - 15 minutes

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boucadair-pcp-failure-06 - Christian Jacquenet - 10 minutes

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boucadair-pcp-flow-examples-02 - Christian Jacquenet - 10 minutes

Port Control Protocol Working Group invites you to attend this online meeting. 

Topic: PCP Interim Meeting 
Date: Tuesday, July 2, 2013 
Time: 7:00 am, Pacific Daylight Time (San Francisco, GMT-07:00) 
Meeting Number: 642 233 632 
Meeting Password: 123456 


------------------------------------------------------- 
To join the online meeting (Now from mobile devices!) 
------------------------------------------------------- 
1. Go to https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/j.php?ED=226920422&UID=0&PW=NNmYwMTMxMzI3&RT=MiM0 
2. If requested, enter your name and email address. 
3. If a password is required, enter the meeting password: 123456 
4. Click "Join". 

To view in other time zones or languages, please click the link: 
https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/j.php?ED=226920422&UID=0&PW=NNmYwMTMxMzI3&ORT=MiM0 

------------------------------------------------------- 
To join the audio conference only 
------------------------------------------------------- 
Call-in toll number (US/Canada): 1-650-479-3208 

Access code:642 233 632 

------------------------------------------------------- 
For assistance 
------------------------------------------------------- 
1. Go to https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/mc 
2. On the left navigation bar, click "Support". 

You can contact me at: 
pcp-chairs@tools.ietf.org 


To add this meeting to your calendar program (for example Microsoft Outlook), click this link: 
https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/j.php?ED=226920422&UID=0&ICS=MI&LD=1&RD=2&ST=1&SHA2=AAAAAmmrikLDopD03t79kvRQwsEjPmyufxqd-a0jxJZMP6l2&RT=MiM0 

The playback of UCF (Universal Communications Format) rich media files requires appropriate players. To view this type of rich media files in the meeting, please check whether you have the players installed on your computer by going to https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/systemdiagnosis.php. 

Sign up for a free trial of WebEx 
http://www.webex.com/go/mcemfreetrial 

http://www.webex.com 

Interim Meeting Info

Agenda:

draft-reddy-pcp-auth-req-02 - 60 minutes

draft-chen-pcp-mobile-deployment-02 - Gang Chen, 10 minutes

Connection Details:

-------------------------------------------------------
Meeting information
-------------------------------------------------------
Topic: PCP Interim Meeting
Date: Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Time: 7:00 am, Pacific Daylight Time (San Francisco, GMT-07:00)
Meeting Number: 641 408 531
Meeting Password: 12345

-------------------------------------------------------
To start or join the online meeting
-------------------------------------------------------
Go to https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/j.php?ED=178241512&UID=492766217&PW=NODM3MzYxNjMx&RT=MiM0

-------------------------------------------------------
Audio conference information
-------------------------------------------------------
Call-in toll number (US/Canada): 1-650-479-3208

Access code:641 408 531

Design Philosophy

PCP design philosophy is best captured in Stuart Cheshire's slides from IETF79 (Beijing).

Why isn't existing protocol "X" already suitable for PCP's use case?

(Note: Some materials that may be useful in answering this question are as follows. A 2007 analysis and comparison of NAT control protocols is Survey of Middlebox Control Protocols and its presentation in slides 8-20. Also see the 2009 Review of NAT Control Protocols and slide 5.)

  1. UPnP IGD:1 (http://www.upnp.org/specs/gw/UPnP-gw-WANIPConnection-v1-Service.pdf)
    • no support for IPv6
    • no support for managing lifetimes of implicit dynamic mappings (PCP "PEER" opcode)
    • no mechanism for detecting NAT state loss (PCP "Epoch" time)
    • data model assumes host has complete control of the NAT (e.g., client dictates external port number and mapping duration)
    • discovery uses multicast, which makes it vulnerable to discovering the wrong NAT gateway (though the same protocol could also be used with a different discovery mechanism)
    • XML over TCP is heavy (requesting external IP address takes 42 packets, requesting a port mapping is typically a 14-packet exchange, for a total of 56 packets, compared to 2 packets using PCP)
  2. UPnP IGD:2 (http://upnp.org/specs/gw/UPnP-gw-WANIPConnection-v2-Service.pdf)
    • no support for NAT64, NAT46, or NAT66
    • no support for managing lifetimes of implicit dynamic mappings (PCP "PEER" opcode)
    • no mechanism for detecting NAT state loss (PCP "Epoch" time)(fixed in UPnP Device Architecture 1.1 but which is optional for IGD v2)
    • data model assumes host has complete control of the NAT (e.g., client dictates mapping duration)
    • To remedy the deficiency of IGD 1, IGD 2 adds the new AddAnyPortMapping operation. Unfortunately the IGD 2 specification also cautions client writers not to depend on it actually working: "AddAnyPortMapping NOTE: Not all NAT implementations will support InternalPort values that are different from ExternalPort." So in principle IGD 2 has this capability, but in reality it's optional whether it actually works on any given device, making it infeasible to make a client that depends on it. (this seems to be a questionable interpretation of the specs: a compliant v2 device is REQUIRED to not restrict port mappings to ExternalPort and InternalPort values being the same, the corresponding error code is defined only for AddPortMapping with a MUST NOT)
    • discovery uses multicast, which makes it vulnerable to discovering the wrong NAT gateway (though the same protocol could also be used with a different discovery mechanism)
    • XML over TCP is heavy
  3. NAT-PMP (draft-cheshire-nat-pmp)
    • no IPv6 support
    • no support for managing lifetimes of implicit dynamic mappings (PCP "PEER" opcode)
    • assumes the default gateway is the NAT-PMP device
    • doesn't provide a lifetime for the public IP address
  4. Diameter NAT Control Application (draft-ietf-dime-nat-control)
  5. NSIS NSLP (RFC5973)
    • complex
  6. MIDCOM (RFC3304)
    • uses SNMP, which requires a library
    • intended for service providers to control NATs, not subscribers to control NATs
  7. SOCKS, TCP only, IPv4 only
  8. SOCKSv5 (RFC1928), forces re-writing of packet headers (bad for firewalling), reverse SOCKSv5 proxy not fully specified
  9. ETSI Ia (ETSI ES 283 018)
  10. ETSI Gq' (ETSI TS 183017)
  11. ITU Rs (ITU-T Q.3321)
  12. ITU Rw (ITU-T Q.3303.3, RFC5431)
  13. Diameter Rx+
  14. Diameter Gx+
  15. STUN (RFC5389)
  16. RSIP (RFC3103)
  17. ALD (draft-woodyatt-ald)
  18. NLS (draft-shore-nls-tl)
  19. AFWC (draft-shore-afwc)