PCP Working Group M. Boucadair
Internet-Draft France Telecom
Intended status: Standards Track R. Penno
Expires: September 8, 2011 Juniper Networks
D. Wing
Cisco
R. Dupont
Internet Systems Consortium
March 7, 2011
Port Control Protocol (PCP) NAT-PMP Interworking Function
draft-bpw-pcp-nat-pmp-interworking-00
Abstract
This document specifies the behavior of a PCP NAT Port Mapping
Protocol (NAT-PMP) Interworking element, for instance embedded in
Customer Premise routers.
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 September 8, 2011.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 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
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
Boucadair, et al. Expires September 8, 2011 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft PCP NAT-PMP IWF March 2011
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. TODO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Link IWF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Result code mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Home IWF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. multicast announces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Boucadair, et al. Expires September 8, 2011 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft PCP NAT-PMP IWF March 2011
1. Introduction
The NAT Port Mapping Protocol (NAT-PMP [I-D.cheshire-nat-pmp])
provides LAN based NAT control features which are a subset of the new
Port Control Protocol (PCP [I-D.ietf-pcp-base]).
This document is about an Interworking Function (IWF) between NAT-PMP
clients on internal hosts and a PCP server running on a ISP Carrier-
Grade NAT.
Two kinds of IWFs are described:
Link IWF which serves only clients attached to a LAN
Home IWF which serves directly or indirectly through Link IWFs all
the clients of the Home domain
The Home IWF can be integrated with a UPnP IGD IWF
[I-D.bpw-pcp-upnp-igd-interworking] and/or a PCP Proxy
[I-D.bpw-pcp-proxy]. Because NAT-PMP does not work through routers,
an IWF is REQUIRED to serve any LAN where a NAT-PMP client is
attached. A Home IWF is REQUIRED per Home domain where a NAT-PMP
client is to be served.
Note the NAT-PMP IWF architecture is closed to the PCP Proxy one so a
knowledge of [I-D.bpw-pcp-proxy] is assumed.
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].
2. TODO
To be filled (imports from UPnP IGD IWF / PCP Proxy)
3. Link IWF
A Link IWF is used to cross routers, i.e., it allows a NAT-PMP client
attached to a link where the Home IWF is not connected to get the
service.
The Link IWF keeps:
the IP address of the Home IWF
a service socket per link where it offers the service
the source address and port of pending requests
the operation code of pending requests
Pending requests are expired after a reasonable timeout, e.g., 30
seconds.
Boucadair, et al. Expires September 8, 2011 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft PCP NAT-PMP IWF March 2011
NAT-PMP port requests and responses are mapped to PCP MAP4 requests
and responses. A THIRD_PARTY option is used to carry the client
address.
public address requests and responses are not mapped to PCP messages
but are sent to and received from the Home IWF.
4. Result code mapping
PCP result codes and error conditions are mapped to NAT-PMP result
codes following this table:
a bad version in NAT-PMP request is mapped to code 1 "Unsupported
Version"
a bad opcode in NAT-PMP request is mapped to code 5 "Unsupported
Opcode"
to have no external address and similar conditions are mapped to
code 3 "Network Failure"
NO_RESOURCES and USER_EX_QUOTA are mapped to code 4 "Out of
resources"
NOT_AUTHORIZED is mapped to code 2 "Not Authorized/Refused"
SUCCESS is mapped to code 0 "Success"
[I-D.woodyatt-spnatpmp-appl]
5. Home IWF
At the exception of public address request handling, a Home IWF works
as a Smart PCP Proxy. In particular the Epoch handling is a REQUIRED
service.
When the Epoch value is reset, a multicast public address announce
SHOULD be sent on served links with a multicast capability.
A Home IWF MUST deal with public address request and response
internally, i.e., it gets the Epoch value and the external address
from its internal state.
The request/response caching and retransmission services SHOULD be
supported as the IWF adapts retransmission scheduling between
protocols.
6. multicast announces
To be filled.
Boucadair, et al. Expires September 8, 2011 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft PCP NAT-PMP IWF March 2011
7. IANA Considerations
This document makes no request of IANA.
Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an
RFC.
8. Security Considerations
To be filled.
9. Acknowledgments
To be filled.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[I-D.cheshire-nat-pmp]
Cheshire, S., "NAT Port Mapping Protocol (NAT-PMP)",
draft-cheshire-nat-pmp-03 (work in progress), April 2008.
[I-D.ietf-pcp-base]
Wing, D., Cheshire, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and F.
Dupont, "Port Control Protocol (PCP)",
draft-ietf-pcp-base-06 (work in progress), February 2011.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
10.2. Informative References
[I-D.bpw-pcp-proxy]
Boucadair, M., Penno, R., Wing, D., and F. Dupont, "Port
Control Protocol (PCP) Proxy Function",
draft-bpw-pcp-proxy-00 (work in progress), March 2011.
[I-D.bpw-pcp-upnp-igd-interworking]
Boucadair, M., Penno, R., Wing, D., and F. Dupont,
"Universal Plug and Play (UPnP) Internet Gateway Device
(IGD)-Port Control Protocol (PCP) Interworking Function",
draft-bpw-pcp-upnp-igd-interworking-02 (work in progress),
February 2011.
Boucadair, et al. Expires September 8, 2011 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft PCP NAT-PMP IWF March 2011
[I-D.woodyatt-spnatpmp-appl]
Woodyatt, J., "Applicability of NAT-PMP with Service
Provider Deployments of Network Address Translation",
draft-woodyatt-spnatpmp-appl-01 (work in progress),
November 2008.
Authors' Addresses
Mohamed Boucadair
France Telecom
Rennes 35000
France
Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange-ftgroup.com
Reinaldo Penno
Juniper Networks
1194 N Mathilda Avenue
Sunnyvale, California 94089
USA
Email: rpenno@juniper.net
Dan Wing
Cisco Systems, Inc.
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, California 95134
USA
Email: dwing@cisco.com
Francis Dupont
Internet Systems Consortium
Email: fdupont@isc.org
Boucadair, et al. Expires September 8, 2011 [Page 6]