PCP working group D. Wing Internet-Draft Cisco Intended status: Standards Track October 18, 2010 Expires: April 21, 2011 Pinhole Control Protocol (PCP) draft-wing-pcp-base-00 Abstract Pinhole Control Protocol is an address-family independent mechanism to control how incoming packets are forwarded by upstream devices such as IPv4 NAT devices, NAT64 devices, and IPv6 firewalls. Document Quality ** NOTE: due to a variety of reasons, this document's quality is low. This will be improved by the next Internet Draft cutoff date. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. 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." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 21, 2011. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. Wing Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Pinhole Control Protocol (PCP) October 2010 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. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1. Protocol Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.2. Deployment Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1. Supported Transport Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2. Single-homed CP Routers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1. Port Forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2. PCP Client . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.3. PCP Server . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.4. Interworking with UPnP IGD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.4.1. Creating a mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.4.2. Adjacent ports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.4.3. Lifetime Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4. PCP Server Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5. Request and Response Packet Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.1. Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.2. Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.3. Information Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.4. Result Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6. Nested NATs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 7. PCP Mapping State Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 7.1. Epoch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 7.2. Recreating Mappings On NAT Gateway Reboot . . . . . . . . 15 8. NAT-PMP Backwards Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 9. Processing Pinhole Requests and Responses . . . . . . . . . . 18 9.1. Generating and Sending a Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 9.2. Processing a Request and Generating the Response . . . . . 19 9.3. Processing a Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 10. PCP Client Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 10.1. Pinhole Lifetime Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 10.2. Pinhole Deletion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 10.3. Multi-interface Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 10.4. Renumbering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 11. PCP Server Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Wing Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Pinhole Control Protocol (PCP) October 2010 11.1. Pinhole Lifetime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 11.2. Pinhole deletion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 11.3. Subscriber Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 11.4. External IP Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 11.5. Policy Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 12. Failure Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 12.1. Host Reboot/PCP Client Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 12.2. PCP Proxy/PCP Interworking Function . . . . . . . . . . . 26 13. Deployment Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 13.1. Dual Stack-Lite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 13.1.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 13.1.2. Encapsulation Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 13.1.3. Plain IPv6 Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 13.2. NAT64 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 13.3. NAT44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 13.4. IPv6 Firewall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 14. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 15. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 15.1. PCP IP address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 15.2. PCP Port Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 15.3. PCP OpCodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 15.4. PCP Error Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 15.5. PCP Information Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 16. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 17. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 17.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 17.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Appendix A. Analysis of Techniques to Discover PCP Server . . . . 30 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Wing Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Pinhole Control Protocol (PCP) October 2010 1. Introduction ** NOTE: due to a variety of reasons, this document's quality is low. This will be improved by the next Internet Draft cutoff date. 1.1. Protocol Overview Pinhole Control Protocol (PCP) provides a mechanism to control how incoming packets are forwarded by upstream devices such as NATs and firewalls. PCP is primarily designed to be implemented in the context of large scale NAT deployments. Especially, it offers the ability to configure a port forwarding capability in Service Provider NATs. Therefore, similar service features as per current CP (Customer Premises) router model can be offered to Customers who are serviced behind a Provider NAT. PCP allows applications to create pinholes from an external IP address to an internal IP address and port. If the PCP-controlled device is a NAT, a mapping is created; if the PCP-controlled device is a firewall, a pinhole is created in the firewall. These pinholes are required for successful inbound communications destined to machines located behind a NAT. 1.2. Deployment Scenarios PCP can be used in various deployment scenarios, including: o DS-Lite AFTR [I-D.ietf-softwire-dual-stack-lite] o Stateful NAT64 [I-D.ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-stateful] o Stateless NAT64 [I-D.ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate] o Large-Scale NAT44 [I-D.nishitani-cgn] o Layer-2 aware NAT [I-D.miles-behave-l2nat] o IPv6 firewall control [I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security] 2. Scope 2.1. Supported Transport Protocols PCP is designed to support transport protocols that uses a port number (e.g., TCP, UDP, SCTP, DCCP). Transport protocols that do not use a port number (e.g., IPsec ESP) can be wildcarded (allowing any Wing Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Pinhole Control Protocol (PCP) October 2010 traffic with that protocol to pass), provided of course the upstream device being controlled by PCP supports that functionality, or new PCP OpCodes can be defined to support those protocols. In this document, only TCP and UDP are defined. 2.2. Single-homed CP Routers The PCP machinery assumes a single-homed subscriber model. That is, for a given IP version, only one default route exists to reach the Internet, much as there is only one default route for a TCP SYN towards the Internet. This restriction exists because otherwise there would need to be one PCP servers for each egress, because the host could not reliably determine which egress path packets would take. 3. Terminology 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]. 3.1. Port Forwarding Port forwarding allows a host to receive traffic sent to a specific IP address and port. In the context of a NAT with internal and external IP addresses, if an internal host is listening to connections on a specific port (that is, operating as a server), the external IP address and port number need to be port forwarded (also called "mapped") to the internal IP address and port number. The internal and external IP addresses are different, and a key point is that the internal and external transport destination port numbers could be different. For example, a webcam might be listening on port 80 on its internal address 192.168.1.1, while its publicly-accessible external address is 192.0.2.1 and port is 12345. The NAT does 'port forwarding' of one to the other. In the context of a firewall, the internal and external IP addresses (and ports) are not changed. 3.2. PCP Client The network element that sends PCP requests to the PCP Server. This network element could be an application running on a host, embedded in the host's OS or libraries, or running on a network device (such Wing Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Pinhole Control Protocol (PCP) October 2010 as a customer premise router). 3.3. PCP Server A network element which receives and processes PCP requests from a PCP Client. This element might be the same as the device embedding the controlled NAT (as shown in Figure 1) or might be a different element in the network which interacts with the NAT (e.g., using out- of-band XML, as shown in Figure 2). +-----------------+ +------------+ | NAT or firewall | | PCP Client |--+ +--- +------------+ | with embedded | | PCP server | +-----------------+ Figure 1: device with Embedded PCP Server +-----------------+ +--+ NAT or firewall +--- / +-----------------+ +------------+ / ^ | PCP Client +- | Interaction (e.g., using XML) +------------+ \ v \ +------------+ +--+ PCP Server | +------------+ Figure 2: NAT with Separate PCP Server 3.4. Interworking with UPnP IGD In UPnP IGD, a 'control point' can request a specific port or can request a wildcard port, and there is no concept of a mapping lifetime. This model does not work well with NATs, especially large scale NATs. Wing Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Pinhole Control Protocol (PCP) October 2010 +-------------+ | IGD Control | | Point |-----+ +-------------+ | +-----+ +--------+ +---| IGD-| |Provider| | PCP |-------| NAT |-- +---| IWF | | | +-------------+ | +-----+ +--------+ | Local Host |-----+ +-------------+ LAN Side External Side <======UPnP IGD==========><======PCP=====> Figure 3: UPnP IGD to PCP Interworking Function 3.4.1. Creating a mapping [Ed. Note: this section needs revision.] [Ed. Note: discuss three types of mapping: dynamic (TCP SYN), PCP, and static configured (e.g., CLI or web page) -- all three are the same and create a mapping entry. To interwork from UPnP IGD to PCP, our recommendation is that every UPnP request be forwarded to the PCP server. This works if the UPnP control point is incrementing the source port number, and also works if the UPnP control point is randomly choosing the source port number, and also works if it chooses 'any'. The UPnP IGD/PCP interworking function would request very short leases (e.g., 5 seconds) in order to avoid the chatter of a DELETE message (lifetime=0). Once a port can be allocated, its lifetime is extended. When interworking with UPnP IGD, the in-home CPE limits itself to sending one PCP message a second, which ensures there are only 5 outstanding PCP reserverations at a time; this avoids consuming all of that subscriber's NAT mappings while trying to find an available port via the UPnP IGD->PCP interworking function). Note: for this to work successfully, the PCP server (large NAT) needs to honor the requested-external-port field in the PCP request. Which is the purpose of that field, of course. Wing Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 7] Internet-Draft Pinhole Control Protocol (PCP) October 2010 Message flow would be similar to this: UPnP CP in-home CPE PCP server | | | |-UPnP:give me port 80->| | | |-PCP:request port 80------>| | | with lease=5 seconds | | |<-PCP:here is port 51389---| |<-UPnP: unavailable----| | | | | |-UPnP:give me port 81->| | | |-PCP:request port 81------>| | | with lease=5 seconds | | |<-PCP:here is port 23831---| |<-UPnP: unavailable----| | | | | ... ... ... ... | | | |-UPnP:give me port 85->| | | |-PCP:request port 85------>| | | with lease=5 seconds | | |<-PCP:here is port 85------| | | | | |-PCP:extend lease,port=85->| | |<-PCP:ok-------------------| | | | |<-UPnP: ok, port 85----| | | | | Figure 4: Message Flow for UPnP to PCP Interworking 3.4.2. Adjacent ports RTP and RTCP have historically run on adjacent ports, and some older equipment still expects them to be on adjacent ports. To accomodate that, a procedure can be used rather than adding complexity to the protocol or to the server implementation. The procedure is for the PCP client to request port 0 (indicating it will accept any port from the server) for a short duration (e.g., 5 seconds), and receive the response indicating it now has port N. The PCP client then sends a request for port N-1 and port N+1, attempting to get a port on either side of the initial port. If it obtains adjacent ports it extends the lease of the two ports. If it doesn't obtain adjacent ports it repeats the procedure, asking for port 0 with a short lease again. Wing Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 8] Internet-Draft Pinhole Control Protocol (PCP) October 2010 3.4.3. Lifetime Maintenance UPnP IGD does not provide a lifetime, so the UPnP IGD/PCP interworking function is responsible for extending the lifetime of mappings that are still interesting to the UPnP IGD device. Note: It can be an implementation advantage, where possible, for the UPnP IGD/PCP interworking function to request a port mapping lifetime only while that client is active and connected. For example, creating a PCP mapping that is equal to the client's remaining DHCP lifetime is one useful approach. The UPnP IGD/PCP interworking function is responsible for renewing the PCP lifetime as necessary. As long as client renews its DHCP lease, the PCP lifetime should also be extended. For clients not using DHCP, other mechanisms to check on the client host's liveliness can also be useful (e.g., ping, ARP, or WiFi association) can be used to discern liveliness of the UPnP IGD control point. However, it is NOT RECOMMENDED to attempt to connect to the TCP or UDP port opened on the control point to determine if the host still wants to receive packets; the server could be temporarily down when tested, causing a false negative. 4. PCP Server Discovery After considering several discovery mechanisms (Appendix A) we propose two mechanisms for the PCP client to discover its PCP server: o sending the PCP message to the default router o a fixed IPv4 and a fixed IPv6 address, to be assigned by IANA. [Ed. Note: More discussion is necessary on this topic.] 5. Request and Response Packet Format The request and response packet formats take the same space and layout. It is intended to be backwards compatible with NAT-PMP, so that if a PCP message is sent to a NAT-PMP server it will be rejected with an error code we can parse. The PCP request uses Version=1, which if processed by a NAT-PMP server will cause a version conflict (the NAT-PMP server will see this as NAT-PMP version 16) and an error returned in the same place we're looking for it (last couple of bits of the 4th byte). Wing Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 9] Internet-Draft Pinhole Control Protocol (PCP) October 2010 5.1. Request 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Ver=1 |reserve| OpCode | Protocol | PCPC Src Port | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | PCP Client IP address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ : : : Pinhole Internal IP address (32 or 128) : : : +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ : : : Requested external IP address (32 or 128) : : : +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Requested lifetime | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | internal port | requested external port | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ : (optional) Informational Elements : +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 5: Request Packet Format These fields are described below: Ver Version is 1 reserve 4 reserved bits, MUST be sent as 0, MUST be ignored when received. OpCode defined in Figure 6. Protocol indicates protocol associated with this opcode. For example, indicates TCP if the opcode is intended to create a TCP mapping. Values are taken from the IANA protocol registry [proto_numbers]. PCPC Src Port PCP client's source port for this PCP message. PCP Client IP address PCP client's source IPv4 address for this PCP message. This field and the preceeding field are used to determine if there is a NAT between the PCP client and its PCP server. Wing Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 10] Internet-Draft Pinhole Control Protocol (PCP) October 2010 Pinhole Internal IP address Internal IPv4 or IPv6 address for the mapping. IPv4 or IPv6 address is indicated by the OpCode. Requested external IP address Requested external IPv4 or IPv6 address for the pinhole. IPv4 or IPv6 address is indicated by the OpCode Requested Lifetime Lifetime for this mapping, in seconds internal port Internal port for the pinhole requested external port requested external port for the mapping. IPv4 or IPv6 address is indicated by the OpCode Informational Element optional Informational Elements. See section Section 5.3. the Opcode has the following format: +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | OpCode | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The following OpCodes are defined: 0 = IPv4 address to IPv4 address (NAT44 or IPv4 firewall) 1 = IPv4 address to IPv6 address (NAT46) 2 = IPv6 address to IPv4 address (NAT64) 3 = IPv6 address to IPv6 address (NAT66 or IPv6 firewall) If the internal-ip-address and internal-port matches (requested) external-ip-address and (requested) external-port, the (request or) response pertains to a firewall; otherwise it pertains to a NAT. Figure 6: OpCode format Wing Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 11] Internet-Draft Pinhole Control Protocol (PCP) October 2010 5.2. Response 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Ver=1 |reserve| Opcode+128 | Protocol | Result Code | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Epoch | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ : : : Pinhole Internal IP address (32 or 128) : : : +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ : : : Assigned external IP address (32 or 128) : : : +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Assigned lifetime | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | internal port | assigned external port | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ : (optional) Informational Elements : +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 7: Response Packet Format These fields are described below: Ver Version is 1 reserve 4 reserved bits, MUST be sent as 0, MUST be ignored when received. OpCode defined in Figure 6 Protocol echoed from the Protocol field of the request. Result Code See Section 5.4. Epoch Server's epoch value Pinhole Internal IP address Copied from request. IPv4 or IPv6 address is indicated by the OpCode. Wing Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 12] Internet-Draft Pinhole Control Protocol (PCP) October 2010 Assigned external IP address Assigned external IPv4 or IPv6 address for the pinhole. IPv4 or IPv6 address is indicated by the OpCode Assigned Lifetime Lifetime for this mapping, in seconds internal port Internal port for the pinhole, copied from request. Assigned external port requested external port for the mapping. IPv4 or IPv6 address is indicated by the OpCode Informational Element optional Informational Elements. See section Section 5.3. 5.3. Information Elements The Informational Elements (IE) allow extending PCP, without defining a new PCP version and without consuming additional opcodes. They can be used in requests and responses, and are defined in documents specific to each IE. IEs are useful in a request when additional information is being specified in the request. Examples that have been discussed, which might be standardized in the future, include mapping DSCP bits, indicating which interface is requested for a mapping on a multi-interface NAT (e.g., internal corporate network address versus an Internet-facing address). IEs will use a Type- Length-Value format. IEs that aren't understood by the server are ignored. Information Elements (IE) MAY appear in requests and are associated with the request being sent. If a PCP request contains several IEs, they MAY be encoded in any order in the request and MUST be encoded in the same order in the response. If a PCP client or PCP server receives an IE it does not understand, or is malformed, it simply ignores the IE (as if that IE was not present); note this can cause a response to contain fewer IEs than the request if the PCP server does not understand an IE. The "M" bit indicates this IE is mandatory to process. If this bit is set, server MUST only attempt to process the PCP request if it understands the associated IE; otherwise, the server MUST return error code UNSUPPORTED_MANDATORY_IE. Wing Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 13] Internet-Draft Pinhole Control Protocol (PCP) October 2010 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|Information-Element-Code | IE-Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ : (data) : +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 8: Informational Element header When a new IE is defined, it MUST cause the PCP server to generate an indication the IE was processed by the PCP server (e.g., by including an IE in the response). For example, if the PCP server supported a newly-defined IE which provides descriptive text for a port mapping ("webcam on 4th floor"), the mapping would be created and the PCP server would respond with an IE indicating it included that descriptive text in the mapping. New IEs MUST be registered with IANA following the procedure described in Section 15.5. 5.4. Result Codes ... [Ed. Note: more error codes need to be defined] The following response codes are defined: Currently defined result codes: 0 - Success 1 - Unsupported Version 2 - Not Authorized/Refused (e.g. box supports mapping, but user has turned feature off) 3 - Network Failure (e.g. NAT box itself has not obtained a DHCP lease) 4 - Out of resources (NAT box cannot create any more mappings at this time) 5 - Unsupported opcode 6 - UNSUPPORTED_MANDATORY_IE 6. Nested NATs PCP can detect nested NATs. Server compares the PCPC Src Port and PCP Client IP Address fields the source IP address and UDP port of the incoming packet. If they don't match, error code NAT_ON_PATH is returned. [Ed. Note: this should probably also support detecting on-path NAT for IPv6?] Wing Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 14] Internet-Draft Pinhole Control Protocol (PCP) October 2010 7. PCP Mapping State Maintenance [Ed. Note: This section needs worthsmithin.] [Ed. Note: Discuss PCP servers and NATs that never lose their mapping state. Discuss those that lose their mapping state (home NATs) 7.1. Epoch [Ed. Note: This section needs wordsmithing.] Every packet sent by the NAT gateway includes a "Seconds since start of epoch" field (SSSOE). If the NAT gateway resets or loses the state of its port mapping table, due to reboot, power failure, or any other reason, it MUST reset its epoch time and begin counting SSSOE from 0 again. Whenever a client receives any packet from the NAT gateway, either gratuitously or in response to a client request, the client computes its own conservative estimate of the expected SSSOE value by taking the SSSOE value in the last packet it received from the gateway and adding 7/8 (87.5%) of the time elapsed since that packet was received. If the SSSOE in the newly received packet is less than the client's conservative estimate by more than one second, then the client concludes that the NAT gateway has undergone a reboot or other loss of port mapping state, and the client MUST immediately renew all its active port mapping leases as described in Section 7.2. 7.2. Recreating Mappings On NAT Gateway Reboot [Ed. Note: This section needs wordsmithing.] The NAT gateway MAY store mappings in persistent storage so when it is powered off or rebooted, it remembers the port mapping state of the network. However, maintaining this state is not essential for correct operation. When the NAT gateway powers on or clears its port mapping state as the result of a configuration change, it MUST reset the epoch time and re-announce its IP address as described in Section 3.2.1 "Announcing Address Changes". Reception of this packet where time has apparently gone backwards serves as a hint to clients on the network that they SHOULD immediately send renewal packets (to immediately recreate their mappings) instead of waiting until the originally scheduled time for those renewals. Clients who miss receiving those gateway announcement packets for any reason will still renew their mappings at the originally scheduled time and cause their mappings to be recreated; it will just take a little longer for these clients. Wing Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 15] Internet-Draft Pinhole Control Protocol (PCP) October 2010 A mapping renewal packet is formatted identically to an original mapping request; from the point of view of the client it is a renewal of an existing mapping, but from the point of view of the freshly- rebooted NAT gateway it appears as a new mapping request. This self-healing property of the protocol is very important. The remarkable reliability of the Internet as a whole derives in large part from the fact that important state is held in the endpoints, not in the network itself [ETEAISD]. Power-cycling an Ethernet switch results only in a brief interruption in the flow of packets; established TCP connections through that switch are not broken, merely delayed for a few seconds. Indeed, an old Ethernet switch can even be replaced with a new one, and as long as the cables are transferred over reasonably quickly, after the upgrade all the TCP connections that were previously going though the old switch will be unbroken and now going through the new one. The same is true of IP routers, wireless base stations, etc. The one exception is NAT gateways. Because the port mapping state is required for the NAT gateway to know where to forward inbound packets, loss of that state breaks connectivity through the NAT gateway. By allowing clients to detect when this loss of NAT gateway state has occurred, and recreate it on demand, we turn hard state in the network into soft state, and allow it to be recovered automatically when needed. Without this automatic recreation of soft state in the NAT gateway, reliable long-term networking would not be achieved. As mentioned above, the reliability of the Internet does not come from trying to build a perfect network in which errors never happen, but from accepting that in any sufficiently large system there will always be some component somewhere that's failing, and designing mechanisms that can handle those failures and recover. To illustrate this point with an example, consider the following scenario: Imagine a network security camera that has a web interface and accepts incoming connections from web browser clients. Imagine this network security camera uses NAT-PMP or a similar protocol to set up an inbound port mapping in the NAT gateway so that it can receive incoming connections from clients the other side of the NAT gateway. Now, this camera may well operate for weeks, months, or even years. During that time it's possible that the NAT gateway could experience a power failure or be rebooted. The user could upgrade the NAT gateway's firmware, or even replace the entire NAT gateway device with a newer model. The general point is that if the camera operates for a long enough period of time, some kind of disruption to the NAT gateway becomes inevitable. The question is not whether the NAT gateway will lose its port mappings, but when, and how often. If the network camera and devices like it on the network can detect when the NAT gateway has lost its port mappings, and recreate them Wing Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 16] Internet-Draft Pinhole Control Protocol (PCP) October 2010 automatically, then these disruptions are self-correcting and largely invisible to the end user. If, on the other hand, the disruptions are not self-correcting, and after a NAT gateway reboot the user has to manually reset or reboot all the other devices on the network too, then these disruptions are *very* visible to the end user. This aspect of the design is what makes the difference between a protocol that keeps on working indefinitely over a time scale of months or years, and a protocol that works in brief testing, but in the real world is continually failing and requiring manual intervention to get it going again. When a client renews its port mappings as the result of receiving a packet where the "Seconds since start of epoch" field (SSSOE) indicates that a reboot or similar loss of state has occurred, the client MUST first delay by a random amount of time selected with uniform random distribution in the range 0 to 5 seconds, and then send its first port mapping request. After that request is acknowledged by the gateway, the client may then send its second request, and so on, as rapidly as the gateway allows. The requests SHOULD be issued serially, one at a time; the client SHOULD NOT issue multiple requests simultaneously in parallel. The discussion in this section focusses on recreating inbound port mappings after loss of NAT gateway state, because that is the more serious problem. Losing port mappings for outgoing connections destroys those currently active connections, but does not prevent clients from establishing new outgoing connections. In contrast, losing inbound port mappings not only destroys all existing inbound connections, but also prevents the reception of any new inbound connections until the port mapping is recreated. Accordingly, we consider recovery of inbound port mappings the more important priority. However, clients that want outgoing connections to survive a NAT gateway reboot can also achieve that using NAT-PMP. After initiating an outbound TCP connection (which will cause the NAT gateway to establish an implicit port mapping) the client should send the NAT gateway a port mapping request for the source port of its TCP connection, which will cause the NAT gateway to send a response giving the external port it allocated for that mapping. The client can then store this information, and use later to recreate the mapping if it determines that the NAT gateway has lost its mapping state. 8. NAT-PMP Backwards Compatibility Because NAT-PMP and PCP share the same port, it is important that a NAT-PMP client receive a NAT-PMP error message. This is done by examining the version number of the incoming PCP message; if it is Wing Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 17] Internet-Draft Pinhole Control Protocol (PCP) October 2010 zero, the message is from a NAT-PMP client. A valid NAT-PMP response (rather than a PCP response) is necessary, shown below. A server which supports both NAT-PMP and PCP would be able to process both NAT-PMP and PCP requests normally, and (if necessary) proxy between the protocols. 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 0 | OP = 128 + x | Response Code=1 (unsupp. ver.)| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | 0 (96 bits) | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 9: NAT-PMP response [Ed. Note: More discussion is necessary on NAT-PMP backward compatibility.] 9. Processing Pinhole Requests and Responses PCP messages MUST be sent over UDP, and the PCP Server MUST listen for PCP requests on the PCP-PORT port number (Section 15.2). Every PCP request generates a response, so PCP does not need to run over a reliable transport protocol. 9.1. Generating and Sending a Request To create a pinhole, the PCP client generates a PCP request for the appropriate address family of the internal host and the desired public mapping. The PCP request contains a PCP header, PCP OpCode, and optional Information Elements. Each of these elements contain a length and their own encoding. The PCP Client MAY request an external port matching the internal port. Once a PCP client has discovered its PCP Server (Section 4), and has prepared a PCP Request message for its PCP server, it tries communicating with the first PCP server on its list. It initializes its retransmission timer, RETRY_TIMER, to the round trip time between the PCP client and PCP server. If this value is unknown, 250ms is RECOMMENDED. The PCP Client sends its PCP message to the server and Wing Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 18] Internet-Draft Pinhole Control Protocol (PCP) October 2010 waits RETRY_TIMER for a response. If no response is received, it doubles the value of RETRY_TIMER, sends another (identical) PCP message with the same Transaction-ID, and waits again. This procedure is repeated three times, doubling the value of RETRY_TIMER each time. If no response is received, the PCP client tries with the next IP address in its list of PCP servers. If it has exhausted its list, it SHOULD abort the procedure. If, when sending PCP requests the PCP Client receives an ICMP error (e.g., port unreachable, network unreachable) it SHOULD immediately abort the procedure. Once a PCP client has successfully communicated with a PCP server, it continues communicating with that PCP server until that PCP server becomes non-responsive, which causes the PCP client to attempt to re- iterate the procedure starting with the first PCP server on its list. 9.2. Processing a Request and Generating the Response [Ed. Note: this section needs updating.] Upon receiving a PCP request message, it is parsed. A valid request has the "S" bit cleared, contains a valid PCP header, one valid PCP Opcode, and optional Informational Elements (which the server might or might not comprehend). If an error is encountered during processing, an error response is generated and sent back to the PCP client. This error response SHOULD include those IEs from the request that are understood by the server. After successful parsing of the message, the PCP server validates that the internal IP address in the PCP request belongs to that subscriber. This validation depends on the deployment scenario; see Section 11.3. If the internal IP address in the PCP request does not belong to the subscriber, an error response MUST be generated with error-code=2. If the requested lifetime is 0, it indicates the pinhole described by the internal IP address (and internal ports, if W is cleared) should be deleted; the requested external port is ignored by the server. If such a pinhole exists, it is deleted and a positive response MUST be generated, echoing the information in the request. If the "W" bit is set, it indicates all pinholes for the indicated internal IP address are to be deleted. If the internal IP address is all zeros, it indicates that all pinholes for all hosts belonging to the subscriber are to be deleted for all protocols (if "W" is set) or the indicated protocol (if "W" is cleared). For all cases with lifetime is 0, if such a pinhole does not exist, it could be because the pinhole was already deleted and the response was lost, so the same positive response (as described above) MUST be generated. If the requested lifetime is not 0, but a pinhole already exists for Wing Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 19] Internet-Draft Pinhole Control Protocol (PCP) October 2010 the indicated internal IP address (and port(s)), the PCP server replies with a successful response, as if this was a newly-created pinhole. This can occur because the PCP client is either asking for a renewal of their lifetime, because the original response was lost, or because the PCP client has forgotten about its mapping (e.g., application crashed) and it is requesting a mapping for the same internal IP address and internal port. If any of the requested external port number(s) is not available, and the "M" bit is set, the PCP-controlled device MUST NOT create any pinholes and MUST return an error code=13. If any of the requested external port number is not available, the PCP-controlled device MUST return an available external port number or, if no ports are available or the user has exhausted their port limit, return an error response. If several ports were requested, but not all could be mapped, the PCP server MUST NOT map any of them, and MUST return an error code=7. The PCP-controlled device MAY reduce the lifetime that was requested by the PCP Client. The PCP-controlled device SHOULD NOT offer a lease lifetime greater than that requested by the PCP Client. The RECOMMENDED lifetime assigned by the server is 3600 seconds (i.e., one hour). By default, a PCP-controlled device MUST NOT create mappings for a protocol not indicated in the request; that is, if the request was for a TCP mapping, a UDP mapping MUST NOT be created. Nevertheless, a configurable feature MAY be supported by the PCP-controlled device, which MAY reserve the companion port so the same PCP Client can map it in the future. If all of the proceeding operations were successful (did not generate an error response), then the requested pinholes are created as described in the request and a positive response is built. This positive response contains the same OpCode and Transaction-ID as the request, sets the "S" bit, and uses the PIN-RESPONSE. If multiple ports were in the request, they are all included in the response, in the same order, with their associated assigned external port numbers. If there were Informational Elements in the request, which the server understood and processed (as described by the documents that define those IEs), the necessary IE responses are included. If there were IEs in the request, which the server did not understand, they are simply ignored as if they were not present. Wing Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 20] Internet-Draft Pinhole Control Protocol (PCP) October 2010 9.3. Processing a Response The PCP client receives the response and checks that the Transaction-ID matches one of its outstanding transactions. If it is an error response, the PCP client knows that none of the requested pinholes were created, and can attempt to resolve the problem based on the error code and error subcode. If it is an positive response, the PCP client knows the transaction was entirely successful and can use the external IP address and port(s) as desired. Typically the PCP client will communicate the external IP address and port(s) to another host on the Internet using an application-specific mechanism. 10. PCP Client Operation This section details operation specific to a PCP client. 10.1. Pinhole Lifetime Extension An existing mapping can have its lifetime extended by the PCP client. To do this, the PCP client sends a new PCP map request to the server indicating the internal IP address and port(s). The PCP Client SHOULD renew the mapping before its expiry time, otherwise it will be removed by the PCP Server (see Section 11.2). In order to prevent excessive PCP chatter, it is RECOMMENDED to renew only 60 seconds before expiration time (to account for retransmissions that might be necessary due to packet loss, clock synchronization between PCP client and PCP server, and so on). 10.2. Pinhole Deletion A PCP Client MAY delete a pinhole prior to its natural expiration by sending a PCP Map Request with a lifetime of 0. The PCP server responds by returning a PCP Map Response with a lifetime of 0. To delete all pinholes for all ports, the "W" (wildcard) bit is set, and no internal port/external port is included in the PCP request. To delete all pinholes for all hosts associated with this subscriber, an all-zero internal IP address is used. 10.3. Multi-interface Issues Hosts which desire a PCP mapping might be multi-interfaced (i.e., own several logical/physical interfaces). Indeed, a host can be dual- Wing Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 21] Internet-Draft Pinhole Control Protocol (PCP) October 2010 stack or be configured with several IP addresses. These IP addresses may have distinct reachability scopes (e.g., if IPv6 they might have global reachability scope as for GUA (Global Unicast Address) or limited scope such as ULA (Unique Local Address, [RFC4193])). IPv6 addresses with global reachability scope SHOULD be used as internal IP address when instructing a PCP mapping in a PCP- controlled device. IPv6 addresses with limited scope (e.g., ULA), SHOULD NOT be indicated as internal IP address in a PCP message. As mentioned in Section 2.2, only mono-homed CP routers are in scope. Therefore, there is no viable scenario where a host located behind a CP router is assigned with two GUA addresses belonging to the same global IPv6 prefix. 10.4. Renumbering The CP router might obtain a new IPv6 prefix, either due to a reboot, power outage, DHCPv6 lease expiry, or other action. If this occurs, the ports reserved using PCP might be delivered to another customer. This same problem can occur if an IP address is re-assigned today, without PCP. The solution is the same as today: don't re-assign IP addresses. 11. PCP Server Operation This section details operation specific to a PCP server. 11.1. Pinhole Lifetime Once a PCP server has responded positively to a pinhole request for a certain lifetime, the PCP-controlled device (e.g., NAT, firewall) MUST keep that pinhole open for the duration of the lifetime that was indicated in the PCP response. This is very much akin to how DHCP works today, in that an IP address assigned via DHCP can be used for the duration of the DHCP lease, but this is different from how other protocols (e.g., NAT-PMP) function where the NAT device is permitted to reboot and lose its pinholes. This is by design, because the service provider-operated PCP server and PCP-controlled device are expected to have persistent storage so that pinholes are not forgotten upon failure of the PCP server or failure of the PCP- controlled device (e.g., NAT or firewall). It is NOT RECOMMENDED that the server allow long lifetimes (exceeding 24 hours), because they will consume ports even if the internal host is no longer interested in receiving the traffic (e.g., due to crash or power failure of the PCP client). Other mechanisms, such as a web Wing Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 22] Internet-Draft Pinhole Control Protocol (PCP) October 2010 portal or even a publicly-routed IP address, are probably more appropriate for such long-duration mappings. The PCP server SHOULD be configurable for permitted minimum and maximum lifetime, and the RECOMMENDED values are 120 seconds for the minimum value and 24 hours for the maximum. 11.2. Pinhole deletion A pinhole MUST be deleted by the PCP Server upon the expiry of its lifetime, or upon request from the PCP client. In order to prevent another subscriber from receiving unwanted traffic, the PCP server SHOULD NOT assign that same external port to another host for 120 seconds (MSL, [RFC0793]). [Ed. Note: it should (MUST?) allow the same host to re-acquire the same port, though.] 11.3. Subscriber Identification [Ed. Note: This belongs in the section describing each deployment model] A PCP Client can instruct mappings in a PCP-controlled device on behalf of a third party device (e.g., webcam). In order to prevent a PCP Client to ask for mappings on behalf of a device belonging to another subscriber, the following rules are to be followed depending on the PCP-controlled device: o If the PCP-controlled device is a NAT64: the internal IP address indicated in the PCP message and the source IPv6 address of received PCP request MUST belong to the same IPv6 prefix. The length of the IPv6 prefix is the same as the length assigned to each subscriber on that particular network. o If the PCP-controlled device is a DS-Lite AFTR: DS-Lite (Section 11 of [I-D.ietf-softwire-dual-stack-lite]) already requires the tunnel transport source address be validated, and that same address is used by PCP to assign the tunnel-ID to the requested mapping (see Section 13.1.2 and Section 13.1.3). Thus, PCP acquires the same security properties as DS-Lite. If address validation is implemented correctly, the PCP Client can not instruct mappings on behalf of devices of another subscriber. PCP-controlled devices can be a DS-Lite AFTR or an IPv4-IPv6 interconnection node such as NAT46 or NAT64. These nodes are deployed by Service Providers to deliver global connectivity service to their customers. Appropriate functions to restrict the use of these resources (e.g., CGN facility) to only subscribed users should Wing Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 23] Internet-Draft Pinhole Control Protocol (PCP) October 2010 be supported by these devices. Access control can be implicit or explicit: o It is said to be explicit if an authorisation procedure is required for a user to be granted access to such resources. For such variant of PCP-controlled device, a subscriber can be identified by an IPv6 address, an IPv4 address, a MAC address, or any other information. o For other scenarios, such as plain IPv4-in-IPv6 encapsulation for a DS-Lite architecture, the access to the service is based on the source IPv6 prefix. No per-user polices is pre-configured in the PCP-controlled device. Subscribers identification is required for several reasons such as the following: o Allow access to the network resources; o Configure service profiles such as a bandwidth and/or port usage quotas for fairness service usage among all subscribers; o Blacklist a subscriber because of abuse or non-payment of service fee, etc. o Legal requirements such as legal intercept or legal storage; o Etc. 11.4. External IP Address If there are active mappings for a particular PCP Client -- created via dynamic assignment or created by PCP -- subsequent mapping requests from that same PCP Client MUST use the same external IP address. This is necessary because some protocols require using the same IP address for several ports. 11.5. Policy Configuration A PCP Server MAY be configured with various policies such as: o Supported transport protocols; o Ports to be excluded from the allocation process; o Behaviour when a well-known port is requested: [[Note: A specific configuration: what to do when a PCP Client asks for a WKP but this port associated with the assigned external IP address (for Wing Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 24] Internet-Draft Pinhole Control Protocol (PCP) October 2010 dynamic mapping and not for configured mappings) is used but this port is available in other addresses. This flexibility in the decision-making process of the PCP Server mitigates some of the limitations of sharing IP addresses.]] o Maximum number of ports be assigned to that subscriber; o Enable/disable port preservation; that means the PCP Server always assign the requested port number when that port is in not in use for the corresponding external IP address and transport protocol; o Enable/disable port randomization; o Enable/disable port range allocation policy; o Enable/disable port parity preservation; o Enable/disable port contiguity; o Enable/disable DSCP re-marking; o Enable/disable DSCP filtering; o Enable/disable restricting remote IP address; o Logging of PCP-mapped ports. PCP Server MUST be aware of the configured IPv4 address pool(s), ports in use, etc. It is outside this document to specify how this information is known to the PCP Server. This is implementation- specific. 12. Failure Scenarios In the following sub-sections we discuss PCP failure scenarios. 12.1. Host Reboot/PCP Client Failure From a PCP Client perspective, several failure scenarios can be experienced by the host embedding that PCP Client (e.g., manual reboot, crashes, power outage, etc.). [[To be completed. PCP client can request removal of its mappings (if any) and establish new mappings.]] If the PCP Client has instructed a PCP Server to create mappings on behalf of a third party (e.g., webcam device), any connectivity Wing Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 25] Internet-Draft Pinhole Control Protocol (PCP) October 2010 change occurred in that third party device requires updating its associated mappings. Concretely, if a new IP address is assigned to that device: this change can be notified to the PCP Client by other means (e.g., the PCP Client is embedded in the same DHCP server which assigns IP addresses to internal hosts, administration GUI, etc.). In such case, the PCP Client MUST update the mapping with the new assigned internal IP address. 12.2. PCP Proxy/PCP Interworking Function [[Editor's note: remove this section?]] A failure/reboot of a device embedding a PCP Proxy or a PCP Interworking Function may lead to a change of the IP address of the external interface of that device and/or the loss of the mappings. The PCP Proxy or PCP Interworking Function behaves as follows according to its ability to recover locally installed mappings: o Persistent storage of the mappings: * Change of the IP address of the external interface of the PCP Proxy/PCP Interworking Function: the PCP Proxy/PCP Interworking Function MUST update all its associated mappings in the PCP Server (see Section 10.1); * The same IP address is assigned to the external interface of the PCP Proxy/PCP Interworking Function: No action is to be undertaken by the PCP Proxy/PCP Interworking Function. o Non-persistent storage of the mappings: * The PCP Proxy MUST delete all pinholes to the subscriber. 13. Deployment Scenarios 13.1. Dual Stack-Lite 13.1.1. Overview Various PCP deployment scenarios can be considered to control an AFTR. 1. UPnP IGD and NAT-PMP are used in the LAN: an interworking function is required to be embedded in the CP router to ensure interworking between the protocol used in the LAN and PCP. UPnP IGD-PCP Interworking Function is described in Section 3.4. Wing Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 26] Internet-Draft Pinhole Control Protocol (PCP) October 2010 2. Hosts behind the CP router embed a PCP Client, and communicate directly with the PCP server. No interworking function is required to be embedded in the CP router. In the LAN, the IP address to reach an external PCP Server or a local PCP Proxy is advertised to PCP Clients owing to one of the recommended methods in Section 4. 3. The CP router embeds a PCP Client invoked for HTTP-based configuration (as is common today). The internal-IP-address in the PCP payload would be the internal host used in the port forwarding configuration and the destination IPv4 address is provisioned owing to the one of the recommended methods in Section 4. The UDP destination port number MUST be set to the IANA allocated destination port for PCP. Two modes are identified to forward PCP packets to a PCP Server controlling the provisioned AFTR as described in the following sub- sections. 13.1.2. Encapsulation Mode [Ed. Note: This section needs changes.] In this mode, CP router (B4) does no processing at all of the PCP messages, and forwards them as any other UDP traffic. With DS-Lite, this means that PCP messages issued by internal PCP Clients are encapsulated in IPv6 packets and sent to the AFTR as for any other IPv4 packets. The AFTR de-encapsulates the IPv4 packets and processes the PCP requests (because the destination IPv4 address points to the PCP Server embedded in the AFTR). Like for any other IPv4 packet received by the AFTR in the softwire tunnel, the source IPv6 address of the received IPv4-in-IPv6 PCP packet is stored by the PCP Server. 13.1.3. Plain IPv6 Mode [Ed. Note: This section needs changes.] Another alternative for deployment of PCP in a DS-Lite context is to rely on a PCP Proxy in the CP router. Protocol exchanges between the PCP Proxy and the PCP Server are conveyed using plain IPv6 (no tunnelling is used). Nevertheless, the IPv6 address used as source address by the PCP Proxy MUST be the same as the one used by the B4 element. This IPv6 address is maintained by the PCP Server in its PCP mapping table. Wing Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 27] Internet-Draft Pinhole Control Protocol (PCP) October 2010 13.2. NAT64 [Ed. Note: This section needs changes.] Hosts behind a NAT64 device can make use of PCP in order to perform port reservation (to get a publicly routable IPv4 port). If the IANA-assigned IP address is used for the discovery of the PCP Server, that IPv4 address can be placed into the IPv6 destination address following that particular network's well-known prefix or network-specific prefix, per [I-D.ietf-behave-address-format]. 13.3. NAT44 [Ed. Note: This section needs changes.] 13.4. IPv6 Firewall [Ed. Note: This section needs changes.] 14. Security Considerations [Ed. Note: to be completed.] 15. IANA Considerations IANA is requested to perform the following actions: 15.1. PCP IP address Assign an IPv4 and an IPv6 address for PCP discovery. This is denoted as PCP-IPV4 and PCP-IPV6 in this document. [[RFC-Editor: please update occurrences with the IANA-assigned value.]] 15.2. PCP Port Number Re-use NAT-PMP port number. 15.3. PCP OpCodes Create a new protocol registry for PCP OpCodes populated with the values in Figure 6. New OpCodes can be created via Standards Action [RFC2434]. Wing Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 28] Internet-Draft Pinhole Control Protocol (PCP) October 2010 15.4. PCP Error Codes IANA shall create a new registry for PCP error codes, numbered 0-255, initially populated with the error codes XX.YY. New Error Codes can be created via Specification Required [RFC2434]. 15.5. PCP Information Elements IANA shall create a new registry for PCP Information Elements, numbered 0-65535 with associated mnemonic. New information elements in the range 0-32768 can be created via Standards Action [RFC2434], new information elements in the range 32769-64511 can be created with Expert Review [RFC2434], and the range 64512-65535 is for Private Use [RFC2434]. 16. Acknowledgments Thanks to Francis Dupont, Alain Durand, and Christian Jacquenet for their comments and review. 17. References 17.1. Normative References [I-D.ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate] Li, X., Bao, C., and F. Baker, "IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm", draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-23 (work in progress), September 2010. [I-D.ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-stateful] Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. Beijnum, "Stateful NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers", draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-stateful-12 (work in progress), July 2010. [I-D.ietf-softwire-dual-stack-lite] Durand, A., Droms, R., Woodyatt, J., and Y. Lee, "Dual- Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4 Exhaustion", draft-ietf-softwire-dual-stack-lite-06 (work in progress), August 2010. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Wing Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 29] Internet-Draft Pinhole Control Protocol (PCP) October 2010 [RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998. [RFC4193] Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses", RFC 4193, October 2005. [proto_numbers] IANA, "Protocol Numbers", 2010, . 17.2. Informative References [I-D.ietf-behave-address-format] Bao, C., Huitema, C., Bagnulo, M., Boucadair, M., and X. Li, "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators", draft-ietf-behave-address-format-10 (work in progress), August 2010. [I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security] Woodyatt, J., "Recommended Simple Security Capabilities in Customer Premises Equipment for Providing Residential IPv6 Internet Service", draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-15 (work in progress), October 2010. [I-D.miles-behave-l2nat] Miles, D. and M. Townsley, "Layer2-Aware NAT", draft-miles-behave-l2nat-00 (work in progress), March 2009. [I-D.nishitani-cgn] Yamagata, I., Miyakawa, S., Nakagawa, A., and H. Ashida, "Common requirements for IP address sharing schemes", draft-nishitani-cgn-05 (work in progress), July 2010. [RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC 793, September 1981. [RFC2608] Guttman, E., Perkins, C., Veizades, J., and M. Day, "Service Location Protocol, Version 2", RFC 2608, June 1999. Appendix A. Analysis of Techniques to Discover PCP Server [[Note: This Appendix will be removed in a later version of this document. It is included here for reference and discussion purposes.]] Wing Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 30] Internet-Draft Pinhole Control Protocol (PCP) October 2010 Several mechanisms for discovering the PCP Server can be envisaged as listed below: 1. A special-purpose IPv4 or IPv6 address, assigned by IANA, which is routed normally until it hits a PCP Server, which responds. Analysis: This solution can be deployed in the context of DS- Lite architecture. Concretely, a well-known IPv4 address can be used to reach a PCP Server embedded in the device that embeds the AFTR capabilities. Since all IPv4 messages issued by a DS-Lite CP router will be encapsulated in IPv6, no state synchronisation issues will be experienced because PCP messages will be handled by the appropriate PCP Server. In some deployment scenarios (e.g., deployment of several stateful NAT64/NAT46 in the same domain), the use of this address is not recommended since PCP messages, issued by a given host, may be handled by a PCP Server embedded in a NAT node which is not involved to handle IP packets issued from that host. The use of this special-purpose IP address may induce session failures and therefore the customer may experience troubles when accessing its services. Consequently, the use of a special-purpose IPv4 address is suitable for DS-Lite NAT44. As for NAT46/NAT64, this is left to the Service Providers according to their deployment configuration. The special-use address MUST NOT be advertised in the global routing table. Packets with that destination address SHOULD be filtered so they are not transmitted on the Internet. 2. Assume the default router is a PCP Server, and send PCP packets to the IP address of the default router. Analysis: This solution is not suitable for DS-Lite NAT44 nor for all variants of NAT64/NAT46. In the context of DS-Lite: There is no default IPv4 router configured in the CP router. All outgoing IPv4 traffic is encapsulated in IPv6 and then forwarded to a pre-configured DS-Lite AFTR device. Furthermore, if IPv6 is used to reach the PCP Server, the first router may not be the one which embeds the AFTR. For NAT64/NAT46 scenarios: The NAT function is not embedded in the first router, therefore this solution candidate does not allow to discover a valid PCP Server. Wing Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 31] Internet-Draft Pinhole Control Protocol (PCP) October 2010 Therefore, this alternative is not recommended. 3. Service Location Protocol (SLP [RFC2608]). Analysis: This solution is not suitable in scenarios where multicast is not enabled. SLP is a chatty protocol. This alternative is not recommended. 4. NAPTR. The host would issue a DNS query for a NAPTR record, formed from some bits of the host's IPv4 or IPv6 address. For example, a host with the IPv6 address 2001:db8:1:2:3:4:567:89ab would first send an NAPTR query for 3.0.0.0.2.0.0.0.1.0.0.0.8.b.d.0.1.0.0.2.IP6.ARPA (20 elements, representing a /64 network prefix), which returns the PCP Server's IPv6 address. A similar scheme can be used with IPv4 using, for example, the first 24 bits of the IPv4 address. Analysis: This solution candidate requires more configuration effort by the Service Provider so as to redirect a given client to the appropriate PCP Server. Any change of the engineering policies (e.g., introduce new CGN device, load- based dimensioning, load-balancing, etc.) would require to update the zone configuration. This would be a hurdle for the flexibility of the operational networks. Adherence to DNS is not encouraged and means which allows for more flexibility are to be promoted. Therefore, this mechanism is not recommended. 5. New DHCPv6/DHCP option and/or a RA option to convey an FQDN of a PCP Server. Analysis: Since DS-Lite and NAT64/NAT46 are likely to be deployed in provider-provisioned environments, DHCP (both DHCPv6 and IPv4 DHCP) is convenient to provision the address/ FQDN of the PCP Server. Author's Address Dan Wing Cisco Systems, Inc. 170 West Tasman Drive San Jose, California 95134 USA Email: dwing@cisco.com Wing Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 32]