Port Control Protocol (PCP) Proxy Function
RFC 7648
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08 and is now closed.
Alvaro Retana No Objection
(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) Yes
(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) No Objection
(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) No Objection
(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ben Campbell; former steering group member) No Objection
(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection
(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection
(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection
(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) No Objection
(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection
I have these comments and questions: 1) There is no clear definition of what a PCP proxy really is. Section 1. shows it as a pure signalling entity only w/o any NAT functionality (no mapping functionality) but the document body itself talks about PCP proxies having a mapping table (and also the possibility of not -- Section 3.4.1). Adding such a statement about the PCP proxy is or can be to the intro or the terminology section is a good thing. 2) Section 3.1 talks about hairpinning: There is a potential noteable issue in terms of network management: If the PCP proxy is performing the hair pinning for the Assigned External Address, the byte counters on the PCP server and the proxy will differ for the Assigned External Address. This might be worth to note in a network managment section (or elsewhere in the document).
(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
I share Stephen's curiosity in his Discuss, but I'll follow along there (I saw Med responded 15 minutes ago).
Thanks for addressing my Discuss, which was:
This should be an easy Discuss to resolve.
I was surprised to see
In addition, this goes against the spirit of NAT gateways. The main
purpose of a NAT gateway is to make multiple downstream client
devices making outgoing TCP connections to appear, from the point of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
view of everything upstream of the NAT gateway, to be a single client
device making outgoing TCP connections. In the same spirit, it makes
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
sense for a PCP-capable NAT gateway to make multiple downstream
client devices requesting port mappings to appear, from the point of
view of everything upstream of the NAT gateway, to be a single client
device requesting port mappings.
limited to TCP connections. Is this intentional? https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6887#section-2.2 certainly lists other transport protocols.
Is it correct to say
In addition, this goes against the spirit of NAT gateways. The main
purpose of a NAT gateway is to make multiple downstream client
devices to appear, from the point of
view of everything upstream of the NAT gateway, to be a single client
device.
?
Please note that I'm not objecting to the focus on TCP in this text:
Where this document uses the terms "upstream" and "downstream", the
term "upstream" refers to the direction outbound packets travel
towards the public Internet, and the term "downstream" refers to the
direction inbound packets travel from the public Internet towards
client systems. Typically when a home user views a web site, their
computer sends an outbound TCP SYN packet upstream towards the public
Internet, and an inbound downstream TCP SYN ACK reply comes back from
the public Internet.
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
Thanks for handling my discuss
(Terry Manderson; former steering group member) No Objection