Retrieving the Capabilities of a PCP-controlled Device
draft-boucadair-pcp-capability-00
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Mohamed Boucadair , Reinaldo Penno , Dan Wing | ||
| Last updated | 2012-09-17 | ||
| Stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | plain text htmlized pdfized bibtex | ||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-boucadair-pcp-capability-00
PCP Working Group M. Boucadair
Internet-Draft France Telecom
Intended status: Standards Track R. Penno
Expires: March 21, 2013 D. Wing
Cisco
September 17, 2012
Retrieving the Capabilities of a PCP-controlled Device
draft-boucadair-pcp-capability-00
Abstract
This document extends Port Control Protocol (PCP) with the ability to
retrieve the capabilities of PCP-controlled device: CAPABILITY
Option.
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 21, 2013.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
Boucadair, et al. Expires March 21, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft CAPABILITY September 2012
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. CAPABILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Boucadair, et al. Expires March 21, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft CAPABILITY September 2012
1. Introduction
This document extends the base PCP [I-D.ietf-pcp-base] with a new
feature to discover the capabilities of a PCP-controlled device.
Retrieving the capabilities of a PCP-controlled device would allow to
avoid error, provide a hint why some applications fails, help select
the OpCode to issue, etc.
This option can be elected to be defined as a new OpCode.
This option has been defined first in [I-D.boucadair-pcp-extensions].
2. CAPABILITY
The CAPABILITY option (Code: TBA, Figure 1) is used by a PCP Server
to indicate to a requesting PCP Client the capabilities it supports
with regards to port forwarding operations.
Several Capability options MAY be conveyed in the same PCP response
message if several functions are co-located in the same PCP-
controlled device (e.g., NAT44 and NAT64, NAT44 and ports set
assignment capability, etc.).
This option, when received from a PCP Server, is used by a PCP Client
to constraint the content of its requests and therefore avoid errors.
Boucadair, et al. Expires March 21, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft CAPABILITY September 2012
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| CAPABILITY | Reserved | 0x01 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|F T P A S C I O| 00...00 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
This Option:
Option Name: PCP Capabilities Option (CAPABILITY)
Number: TBA (IANA)
Purpose: Retrieve the capabilities of a PCP-controlled device
Valid for Opcodes: ANNOUNCE, MAP, PEER
Length: 0x01
May appear in: both request and response
Maximum occurrences: None
Figure 1: Capability option
Below is provided a description of the F, T, P, A, S, C, I and O
bits:
Name Description
---- ----------------------------------------------------------------
F This bit indicates the address family of the source address
issued by internal hosts
T This bit indicates the address family of the source address of
the packets forwarded in the external side of the PCP-controlled
device
P This bit indicates whether the source port number is translated
or not.
A This bit indicates whether the source IP address is translated
or not.
S This bit indicates whether the controlled device supports the
ability to assign a set or ports
C This bit indicates whether the PCP-controlled devices inspects
the received packets and if it can block them
I This bit indicates whether incoming packets are rejected unless
an explicit rule is enforced in the PCP-controlled device
O This bit indicates whether outbound packets are inspected or not
before being granted to leave the internal realm.
The value of the F, T, P, A, S, C, I and O bits are as follows:
Boucadair, et al. Expires March 21, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft CAPABILITY September 2012
Position Name Meaning
-------- ------------------ ------------------------------
1 From (F) 0=from IPv4, 1=from IPv6
2 To (T) 0=to IPv4, 1=to IPv6
3 Port-Xlate (P) 1=translated, 0=not translated
4 Addr-Xlate (A) 1=translated, 0=not translated
5 Port-Set (S) 1=enabled, 0=not supported
6 Packet-Control (C) 1=enabled, 0=not supported
7 Direction-Out (I) 1=enabled, 0=disabled
8 Direction-In (O) 1=enabled, 0=disabled
A stateless NAT64 [RFC6145] would have the following values:
From=0 (IPv4)
To=1 (IPv6)
Port-Xlate=0 (No)
Addr-Xlate=1 (Yes)
Port-Set=0 (No)
Packet-control=0 (No)
Direction-out (0) (No)
Direction-In=0 (No)
A stateful NAT64 [RFC6146] would have the following values:
From=0 (IPv4)
To=1 (IPv6)
Port-Xlate=1 (Yes)
Addr-Xlate=1 (Yes)
Port-Set=0 (No)
Packet-control=0 (No)
Direction-out (0) (No)
Direction-In=0 (No)
A NAT44 would be characterized as follows:
Boucadair, et al. Expires March 21, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft CAPABILITY September 2012
From=0 (IPv4)
To=0 (IPv4)
Port-Xlate=1 (Yes)
Addr-Xlate=1 (Yes)
Port-Set=0 (No)
Packet-control=0 (No)
Direction-out (0) (No)
Direction-In=0 (No)
An A+P Port Range Router [RFC6346] would be characterized as follows:
From=0 (IPv4)
To=0 (IPv4)
Port-Xlate=0 (No)
Addr-Xlate=0 (No)
Port-Set=1 (Yes)
Packet-control=0 (No)
Direction-out (0) (No)
Direction-In=0 (No)
3. Security Considerations
Security considerations discussed in [I-D.ietf-pcp-base] must be
considered.
4. IANA Considerations
The following PCP Option Code are to be allocated:
CAPABILITY
5. References
5.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-pcp-base]
Wing, D., Cheshire, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and P.
Selkirk, "Port Control Protocol (PCP)",
draft-ietf-pcp-base-26 (work in progress), June 2012.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC6145] Li, X., Bao, C., and F. Baker, "IP/ICMP Translation
Boucadair, et al. Expires March 21, 2013 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft CAPABILITY September 2012
Algorithm", RFC 6145, April 2011.
[RFC6146] Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful
NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6
Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, April 2011.
5.2. Informative References
[I-D.boucadair-pcp-extensions]
Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and D. Wing, "Some Extensions to
Port Control Protocol (PCP)",
draft-boucadair-pcp-extensions-03 (work in progress),
April 2012.
[RFC6346] Bush, R., "The Address plus Port (A+P) Approach to the
IPv4 Address Shortage", RFC 6346, August 2011.
Authors' Addresses
Mohamed Boucadair
France Telecom
Rennes, 35000
France
Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Reinaldo Penno
Cisco
USA
Email: repenno@cisco.com
Dan Wing
Cisco Systems, Inc.
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, California 95134
USA
Email: dwing@cisco.com
Boucadair, et al. Expires March 21, 2013 [Page 7]