idnits 2.17.1 draft-bpw-pcp-nat-pmp-interworking-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (March 7, 2011) is 4792 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-07) exists of draft-cheshire-nat-pmp-03 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft: draft-cheshire-nat-pmp (ref. 'I-D.cheshire-nat-pmp') == Outdated reference: A later version (-29) exists of draft-ietf-pcp-base-06 == Outdated reference: A later version (-02) exists of draft-bpw-pcp-proxy-00 Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 PCP Working Group M. Boucadair 3 Internet-Draft France Telecom 4 Intended status: Standards Track R. Penno 5 Expires: September 8, 2011 Juniper Networks 6 D. Wing 7 Cisco 8 R. Dupont 9 Internet Systems Consortium 10 March 7, 2011 12 Port Control Protocol (PCP) NAT-PMP Interworking Function 13 draft-bpw-pcp-nat-pmp-interworking-00 15 Abstract 17 This document specifies the behavior of a PCP NAT Port Mapping 18 Protocol (NAT-PMP) Interworking element, for instance embedded in 19 Customer Premise routers. 21 Status of this Memo 23 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 24 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 26 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 27 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 28 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 29 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 31 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 32 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 33 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 34 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 36 This Internet-Draft will expire on September 8, 2011. 38 Copyright Notice 40 Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 41 document authors. All rights reserved. 43 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 44 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 45 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 46 publication of this document. Please review these documents 47 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 48 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 49 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 50 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 51 described in the Simplified BSD License. 53 Table of Contents 55 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 56 2. TODO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 57 3. Link IWF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 58 4. Result code mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 59 5. Home IWF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 60 6. multicast announces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 61 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 62 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 63 9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 64 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 65 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 66 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 67 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 69 1. Introduction 71 The NAT Port Mapping Protocol (NAT-PMP [I-D.cheshire-nat-pmp]) 72 provides LAN based NAT control features which are a subset of the new 73 Port Control Protocol (PCP [I-D.ietf-pcp-base]). 75 This document is about an Interworking Function (IWF) between NAT-PMP 76 clients on internal hosts and a PCP server running on a ISP Carrier- 77 Grade NAT. 79 Two kinds of IWFs are described: 80 Link IWF which serves only clients attached to a LAN 81 Home IWF which serves directly or indirectly through Link IWFs all 82 the clients of the Home domain 83 The Home IWF can be integrated with a UPnP IGD IWF 84 [I-D.bpw-pcp-upnp-igd-interworking] and/or a PCP Proxy 85 [I-D.bpw-pcp-proxy]. Because NAT-PMP does not work through routers, 86 an IWF is REQUIRED to serve any LAN where a NAT-PMP client is 87 attached. A Home IWF is REQUIRED per Home domain where a NAT-PMP 88 client is to be served. 90 Note the NAT-PMP IWF architecture is closed to the PCP Proxy one so a 91 knowledge of [I-D.bpw-pcp-proxy] is assumed. 93 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 94 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 95 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 97 2. TODO 99 To be filled (imports from UPnP IGD IWF / PCP Proxy) 101 3. Link IWF 103 A Link IWF is used to cross routers, i.e., it allows a NAT-PMP client 104 attached to a link where the Home IWF is not connected to get the 105 service. 107 The Link IWF keeps: 108 the IP address of the Home IWF 109 a service socket per link where it offers the service 110 the source address and port of pending requests 111 the operation code of pending requests 112 Pending requests are expired after a reasonable timeout, e.g., 30 113 seconds. 115 NAT-PMP port requests and responses are mapped to PCP MAP4 requests 116 and responses. A THIRD_PARTY option is used to carry the client 117 address. 119 public address requests and responses are not mapped to PCP messages 120 but are sent to and received from the Home IWF. 122 4. Result code mapping 124 PCP result codes and error conditions are mapped to NAT-PMP result 125 codes following this table: 126 a bad version in NAT-PMP request is mapped to code 1 "Unsupported 127 Version" 128 a bad opcode in NAT-PMP request is mapped to code 5 "Unsupported 129 Opcode" 130 to have no external address and similar conditions are mapped to 131 code 3 "Network Failure" 132 NO_RESOURCES and USER_EX_QUOTA are mapped to code 4 "Out of 133 resources" 134 NOT_AUTHORIZED is mapped to code 2 "Not Authorized/Refused" 135 SUCCESS is mapped to code 0 "Success" 137 [I-D.woodyatt-spnatpmp-appl] 139 5. Home IWF 141 At the exception of public address request handling, a Home IWF works 142 as a Smart PCP Proxy. In particular the Epoch handling is a REQUIRED 143 service. 145 When the Epoch value is reset, a multicast public address announce 146 SHOULD be sent on served links with a multicast capability. 148 A Home IWF MUST deal with public address request and response 149 internally, i.e., it gets the Epoch value and the external address 150 from its internal state. 152 The request/response caching and retransmission services SHOULD be 153 supported as the IWF adapts retransmission scheduling between 154 protocols. 156 6. multicast announces 158 To be filled. 160 7. IANA Considerations 162 This document makes no request of IANA. 164 Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an 165 RFC. 167 8. Security Considerations 169 To be filled. 171 9. Acknowledgments 173 To be filled. 175 10. References 177 10.1. Normative References 179 [I-D.cheshire-nat-pmp] 180 Cheshire, S., "NAT Port Mapping Protocol (NAT-PMP)", 181 draft-cheshire-nat-pmp-03 (work in progress), April 2008. 183 [I-D.ietf-pcp-base] 184 Wing, D., Cheshire, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and F. 185 Dupont, "Port Control Protocol (PCP)", 186 draft-ietf-pcp-base-06 (work in progress), February 2011. 188 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 189 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 191 10.2. Informative References 193 [I-D.bpw-pcp-proxy] 194 Boucadair, M., Penno, R., Wing, D., and F. Dupont, "Port 195 Control Protocol (PCP) Proxy Function", 196 draft-bpw-pcp-proxy-00 (work in progress), March 2011. 198 [I-D.bpw-pcp-upnp-igd-interworking] 199 Boucadair, M., Penno, R., Wing, D., and F. Dupont, 200 "Universal Plug and Play (UPnP) Internet Gateway Device 201 (IGD)-Port Control Protocol (PCP) Interworking Function", 202 draft-bpw-pcp-upnp-igd-interworking-02 (work in progress), 203 February 2011. 205 [I-D.woodyatt-spnatpmp-appl] 206 Woodyatt, J., "Applicability of NAT-PMP with Service 207 Provider Deployments of Network Address Translation", 208 draft-woodyatt-spnatpmp-appl-01 (work in progress), 209 November 2008. 211 Authors' Addresses 213 Mohamed Boucadair 214 France Telecom 215 Rennes 35000 216 France 218 Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange-ftgroup.com 220 Reinaldo Penno 221 Juniper Networks 222 1194 N Mathilda Avenue 223 Sunnyvale, California 94089 224 USA 226 Email: rpenno@juniper.net 228 Dan Wing 229 Cisco Systems, Inc. 230 170 West Tasman Drive 231 San Jose, California 95134 232 USA 234 Email: dwing@cisco.com 236 Francis Dupont 237 Internet Systems Consortium 239 Email: fdupont@isc.org