Internet Engineering Task Force C. Zhou Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies Intended status: Standards Track T. Tsou Expires: July 10, 2012 Huawei Technologies (USA) X. Deng M. Boucadair France Telecom Q. Sun China Telecom January 7, 2012 Using PCP To Coordinate Between the CGN and Home Gateway Via Port Allocation draft-tsou-pcp-natcoord-04 Abstract Consider a situation where a subscriber's packets are subject to two levels of NAT, with both NATs operating under the control of the ISP. An example of this would be a NATing Home Gateway forwarding packets to a Large Scale NAT. This memo proposes that advantage be taken of the presence of the second NAT, to offload the burden on the Large Scale NAT by delegation to the Home Gateway. Enhancements to the Port Control Protocol are specified to achieve this. The proposed solution applies also for DS-Lite where the AFTR offloads it NAT to the B4 element. 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 July 10, 2012. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Zhou, et al. Expires July 10, 2012 [Page 1] Internet-Draft NAT Coordination Using Port Allocation January 2012 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 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. Application Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Proposed Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Delegation of Port Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2. Packet Processing At the Home Gateway and LSN . . . . . . 4 2.3. Proposed Enhancements To and Usage Of the Port Control Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. PCP Coordination Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2. Port Range Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2.1. NAT Bypass PCP Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2.2. Port Range Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.2.2.1. Port_Range_Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.2.2.2. Cryptographically_Random_Port_Range_Option . . . . 9 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5. Additional Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7. Additional Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8.2. informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Zhou, et al. Expires July 10, 2012 [Page 2] Internet-Draft NAT Coordination Using Port Allocation January 2012 1. Application Scenario A Large Scale NAT (LSN) is responsible for translating source addresses and ports for packets passing into and out of the provider network. Especially for large scale service providers, one LSN may need to support at least tens of thousands of customers, resulting in heavy processing requirements for the LSN. In some broadband scenarios an additional NAT is present at the edge of the customer network. For convenience we will call this the Home Gateway. The load on the LSN could be reduced if address and port translation were actually done at the Home Gateway. Achieving such an outcome would require coordination between the two devices. This memo makes a detailed proposal for the required coordination mechanism. 2. Proposed Solution 2.1. Delegation of Port Sets The basic proposal made in this memo is to provide the means for the Home Gateway to request that the LSN delegate to it a set of ports and optionally an external address that will be associated with those ports. It is proposed to use the Port Control Protocol (PCP) [ID.port-control-protocol] to achieve this. The procedure is illustrated in Figure 1. The LSN allocation of port sets MAY take into account the advice given in [ID.behave-natx4-log-reduction]. [RFC6431]defined three port range allocation algorithms: contiguous, non-contiguous and pseudo-random. This document will describe the PCP options to support these port range allocation. Zhou, et al. Expires July 10, 2012 [Page 3] Internet-Draft NAT Coordination Using Port Allocation January 2012 Home Gateway LSN | | | | |------(1)PCP Request-------->| | | | +----+----+ | | Create | | |NAT entry| | +----+----+ | | |<-----(2)PCP Response-----| | (Port Range) | | | Figure 1: Acquiring a Delegated Port Range If the Home Gateway allocates all of the ports that have been delegated to it for a given protocol, it MAY send a request to the LSN for another delegated set of ports. If the LSN satisfies that request, the Home Gateway MUST release the additional set as soon as possible. To achieve this, the Home Gateway May follow a policy for allocation of additional ports to flows, that has the same effect as searching for "free" ports in the port sets in the order in which they were delegated to the Home Gateway. A port SHOULD be considered "free" if no traffic has been observed through it for the timeout interval specified for the protocol concerned, as discussed in [ID.behave-natx4-log-reduction], or if the Home Gateway knows through other means (e.g., host reboot) that it is no longer in use. 2.2. Packet Processing At the Home Gateway and LSN The Home Gateway maps outgoing flows to the delegated ports. If an external address was received it uses that for the source address; otherwise it retains the private address of the Home Gateway as the source address. The procedures are more complicated, of course, if the IP version running externally to the LSN is different from the IP version running between the Home Gateway and the LSN, since the destination address also has to be translated. The details depend on the particular transition mechanism in use, and are left as an exercise for the reader. If the private address is retained, the LSN recognizes it from the original delegation request and changes the source address but not the port before forwarding the packet. If the external public address was used, the LSN is not useful and another device may be needed to allocate the port range. Zhou, et al. Expires July 10, 2012 [Page 4] Internet-Draft NAT Coordination Using Port Allocation January 2012 In the reverse direction, the LSN recognizes the public destination address and port of an incoming packet as belonging to a delegated range for the Home Gateway. It translates the destination address, if necessary, leaving the destination port unchanged. The Home Gateway translates the destination port and address to the corresponding values in the customer network and forwards the packet in turn. 2.3. Proposed Enhancements To and Usage Of the Port Control Protocol This document proposes the following new option for MAP opcodes: PORT_SET_REQUESTED. option number: to be allocated is valid for OpCodes: MAP44, MAP64, MAP46, or MAP66 is included in responses: MUST has length: 0 in requests, 4 in successful responses. [As mentioned above, if non-consecutive sets of ports are allocated, we may want to add parameters of the algorithm for deriving the complete set from the initial value provided in the "assigned external port" field of the response.] may appear more than once: no When constructing a PCP request with the PORT_RANGE_REQUESTED option, the client MUST set the "internal port" field of the request to zero. If requesting a new set of delegated ports, the client MAY set the "requested external port" field to a non-zero value. If releasing a set of delegated ports (i.e., by setting the "Requested lifetime" field to zero), the client MUST set the "requested external port" field to the value of the "assigned external port" field of the earlier response from the server. The remaining fields of the PCP request MUST be set as directed by [ID.port-control-protocol] Upon receiving a PCP request with the PORT_RANGE_REQUESTED option, the server MAY reject it using return codes 151 - NOT_AUTHORIZED, or 152 - USER_EX_QUOTA. In this case, the PORT_SET_REQUESTED option in the response MUST have zero length (no data). If the server chooses to honour the request, it MUST place the value of the first port in the assigned set in the "assigned external port" field of the response. It MUST set the length of the PORT_RANGE_REQUESTED option in the response to 4, and MUST provide the number of ports in the delegated set as the value of the option. Zhou, et al. Expires July 10, 2012 [Page 5] Internet-Draft NAT Coordination Using Port Allocation January 2012 3. PCP Coordination Function 3.1. Use Cases PCP can be used to control an upstream device to achieve the following goals: 1. A plain (i.e., a non-shared) IP address can be assigned to a given subscriber because the subscriber subscribed to a service which uses a protocol that don't embed a transport number or because the NAT is the only deployed platform to manage IP addresses. 2. An application (e.g., sensor) does not need to listen to a whole range of ports available on a given IP address. Only a limited set of ports are used to bind its running services. For such devices, the external port(s) and IP address can be delegated to that application and therefore avoid enforcing NAT in the network side for its associated flows. The NAT in the PCP- controlled device should be bypassed. 3. A device able to restrict its source ports can be delegated an external port restricted IP address. The PCP- controlled device should be instructed to by-pass the NAT when handling flows destined/issued to that device. 3.2. Port Range Options This section defines new PCP options which are meant to instruct a PCP-controlled device to by-pass the NAT function whenever required. 3.2.1. NAT Bypass PCP Option This option (Figure 2) is used by a PCP Client to indicate to the PCP Server to not apply any NAT operation to a corresponding binding. 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | TBA | Reserved | 0x00 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 2: NAT Bypass option This option: Zhou, et al. Expires July 10, 2012 [Page 6] Internet-Draft NAT Coordination Using Port Allocation January 2012 o name: NAT Bypass option o number: TBA o purpose: A PCP Client inserts this option in a PCP request to indicate to the PCP Server to not apply the NAT function. The NAT is then by-passed in the PCP-controlled device. o is valid for OpCodes:all. o length:The length MUST be set to 0. o may appear in:request o maximum occurrences:none A PCP Client inserts this option in a PCP request to indicate to the PCP Server to not apply the NAT function. The NAT is then by-passed in the PCP-controlled device. A PCP Server which supports the NAT by-pass feature MUST include this option in its response to the requesting PCP Client. In particular, when the PCP Server does not include this option in its response, the PCP Client should deduce that the NAT will be enforced in the PCP- controlled device; a NAT will be then enforced in the PCP-controlled device. The NAT bypass feature can be associated with a plain IP address. In such case, a full external IP address is returned to the requesting PCP Client. The client is then able to use all ports associated with that IP address (i.e., without any restriction). Furthermore, this "full" address can be used to access services which do not rely on protocols embedding a port number (e.g., some IPsec modes). In some cases, the PCP Client can request the by-pass of the NAT but without requiring a full IP address (e.g., for the use cases described in bullet 2 and 3 of Section 3.1). In such scenario, in addition to the NAT by-pass option, the PCP Client includes in its PCP request a Port Set Option (Section 3.2.2.1). More information about this option is provided hereafter. The requested lifetime in the PCP MAP request is set to the available lifetime of the port set. If the lifetime is set to zero, it means that the requested port set should be deleted. Internal port, external port and the external address are all invalid. Zhou, et al. Expires July 10, 2012 [Page 7] Internet-Draft NAT Coordination Using Port Allocation January 2012 3.2.2. Port Range Options The Port_Range options are used to specify one set of ports pertaining to a given IP address. As defined in [RFC6431],there are three kinds of port range: contiguous, non-contiguous and random. The Port Range Value and Port Range Mask are used to specify one range of ports (contiguous or non-contiguous) pertaining to a given IP address. A cryptographically random Port Range Option may be used as a mitigation tool against blind attacks. We will describe the two port set PCP options in this section. 3.2.2.1. Port_Range_Option 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |M| Reserved | Port Range Value | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Port Range Mask | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 3: Port_Range_Option o M: mode bit. The mode bit indicates the mode for which the port range is allocated. A value of zero indicates that the port ranges are delegated, while a value of 1 indicates that the port ranges are port-forwarded. o Port Range Value (PRV): The PRV indicates the value of the significant bits of the Port Mask. By default, no PRV is assigned. o Port Range Mask (PRM): The Port Range Mask indicates the position of the bits that are used to build the Port Range Value. By default, no PRM value is assigned. The 1 values in the Port Range Mask indicate by their position the significant bits of the Port Range Value. This option: o name: Port range option o number: TBA o purpose: A PCP Client inserts this option in a PCP request to specify one set of ports (contiguous or not contiguous) pertaining to a given IP address. Zhou, et al. Expires July 10, 2012 [Page 8] Internet-Draft NAT Coordination Using Port Allocation January 2012 o is valid for OpCodes:all. o length:The length MUST be set to 0. o may appear in:request and response o maximum occurrences:none 3.2.2.2. Cryptographically_Random_Port_Range_Option The cryptographically random Port Range PCP Option adheres to the format defined in [ID.port-control-protocol]. 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |M| Reserved | function | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | starting point | number of delegated ports | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | key K ... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ... ... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ... ... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 4: Cryptographically_Random_Port_Range_Option o M: mode bit. The mode bit indicates the mode for which the port range is allocated. A value of zero indicates that the port ranges are delegated, while a value of 1 indicates that the port ranges are port-forwarded. o Function: A 16-bit field whose value is associated with predefined encryption functions. This specification associates value 1 with the predefined function described in Section 2.2.1 of [RFC6431]. o Starting Point: A 16-bit value used as an input to the specified function. o Number of delegated ports: A 16-bit value specifying the number of ports delegated to the client for use as source port values. o Key K: A 128-bit key used as input to the predefined function for delegated port calculation. Zhou, et al. Expires July 10, 2012 [Page 9] Internet-Draft NAT Coordination Using Port Allocation January 2012 This option: o name: Cryptographically Random Port Range Option o number: TBA o purpose: A PCP Client inserts this option in a PCP request to specify one set of random ports pertaining to a given IP address. The random ports can be achieved by defining a function that takes as input a key 'K' and an integer 'x' within the 1024-65535 port range and produces an output 'y' also within the 1024-65535 port range. o is valid for OpCodes:all. o length:The length MUST be set to 0. o may appear in:request and response o maximum occurrences:none 4. Security Considerations Will do later. 5. Additional Author Xiaohong Deng joined the list of authors for version -03 of this draft. 6. IANA Considerations Will register the new option if this draft goes through as a standalone document rather than being incorporated into the base protocol. 7. Additional Author Gabor Bajko Nokia Email: gabor.bajko@nokia.com Zhou, et al. Expires July 10, 2012 [Page 10] Internet-Draft NAT Coordination Using Port Allocation January 2012 8. References 8.1. Normative References [ID.port-control-protocol] Wing, D., "Port Control Protocol (PCP)", December 2011. [RFC6431] Boucadair, M., Levis, P., Bajko, G., Savolainen, T., and T. Tsou, "Huawei Port Range Configuration Options for PPP IP Control Protocol (IPCP)", RFC 6431, November 2011. 8.2. informative References [ID.behave-natx4-log-reduction] Tsou, T., Li, W., and T. Taylor, "Port Management To Reduce Logging In Large-Scale NATs", September 2010. Authors' Addresses Cathy Zhou Huawei Technologies Bantian, Longgang District Shenzhen 518129 P.R. China Phone: Email: cathy.zhou@huawei.com Tina Tsou Huawei Technologies (USA) 2330 Central Expressway Santa Clara, CA 95050 USA Phone: +1 408 330 4424 Email: Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com Xiaohong Deng France Telecom Email: xiaohong.deng@orange-ftgroup.com Zhou, et al. Expires July 10, 2012 [Page 11] Internet-Draft NAT Coordination Using Port Allocation January 2012 Mohamed Boucadair France Telecom Rennes, 35000 France Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange-ftgroup.com Qiong Sun China Telecom P.R.China Phone: 86 10 58552936 Email: sunqiong@ctbri.com.cn Zhou, et al. Expires July 10, 2012 [Page 12]