Huawei Port Range Configuration Options for PPP IP Control Protocol (IPCP)
RFC 6431

Document Type RFC - Informational (November 2011; No errata)
Last updated 2013-03-02
Stream ISE
Formats plain text pdf html
Stream ISE state (None)
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state RFC 6431 (Informational)
Telechat date
Responsible AD Jari Arkko
IESG note ISE Submission
Send notices to mohamed.boucadair@orange-ftgroup.com, pierre.levis@orange-ftgroup.com, Gabor.Bajko@nokia.com, teemu.savolainen@nokia.com, tena@huawei.com, draft-boucadair-pppext-portrange-option@ietf.org, rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org
Independent Submission                                      M. Boucadair
Request for Comments: 6431                                      P. Levis
Category: Informational                                   France Telecom
ISSN: 2070-1721                                                 G. Bajko
                                                           T. Savolainen
                                                                   Nokia
                                                                 T. Tsou
                                               Huawei Technologies (USA)
                                                           November 2011

            Huawei Port Range Configuration Options for PPP
                       IP Control Protocol (IPCP)

Abstract

   This document defines two Huawei IPCP (IP Control Protocol) options
   used to convey a set of ports.  These options can be used in the
   context of port range-based solutions or NAT-based solutions for port
   delegation and forwarding purposes.

Status of This Memo

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
   published for informational purposes.

   This is a contribution to the RFC Series, independently of any other
   RFC stream.  The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at
   its discretion and makes no statement about its value for
   implementation or deployment.  Documents approved for publication by
   the RFC Editor are not a candidate for any level of Internet
   Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6431.

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.

Boucadair, et al.             Informational                     [Page 1]
RFC 6431                 Port Range IPCP Options           November 2011

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ....................................................2
      1.1. Use Cases ..................................................3
      1.2. Terminology ................................................3
      1.3. Requirements Language ......................................4
   2. Port Range Options ..............................................4
      2.1. Description of Port Range Value and Port Range Mask ........4
      2.2. Cryptographically Random Port Range Option .................6
           2.2.1. Random Port Delegation Function .....................6
           2.2.2. Description of Cryptographically Random Port
                  Range Option ........................................8
      2.3. Illustration Examples .....................................10
           2.3.1. Overview ...........................................10
           2.3.2. Successful Flow: Port Range Options Supported
                  by Both the Client and the Server ..................10
           2.3.3. Port Range Option Not Supported by the Server ......11
           2.3.4. Port Range Option Not Supported by the Client ......13
   3. Security Considerations ........................................14
   4. Contributors ...................................................14
   5. Acknowledgements ...............................................14
   6. References .....................................................14
      6.1. Normative References ......................................14
      6.2. Informative References ....................................15

1.  Introduction

   Within the context of IPv4 address depletion, several solutions have
   been investigated to share IPv4 addresses.  Two flavors can be
   distinguished: NAT-based solutions (e.g., Carrier-Grade NAT (CGN)
   [CGN-REQS]) and port range-based solutions (e.g., [RFC6346]
   [PORT-RANGE-ARCH] [SAM]).  Port range-based solutions do not require
   an additional NAT level in the service provider's domain.  Several
   means may be used to convey port range information.

   This document defines the notion of "Port Mask", which is generic and
   flexible.  Several allocation schemes may be implemented when using a
   Port Mask.  It proposes a basic mechanism that allows the allocation
   of a unique port range to a requesting client.  This document defines
   Huawei IPCP options to be used to carry port range information.

   IPv4 address exhaustion is only provided as an example of the usage
Show full document text