Internet DRAFT - draft-boucadair-pcp-failure
draft-boucadair-pcp-failure
PCP Working Group M. Boucadair
Internet-Draft France Telecom
Intended status: Informational R. Penno
Expires: November 17, 2013 Cisco
May 16, 2013
Analysis of Port Control Protocol (PCP) Failure Scenarios
draft-boucadair-pcp-failure-06
Abstract
This document identifies and analyzes several PCP failure scenarios.
Identifying these failure scenarios is useful to assess the
efficiency of the protocol and also to decide whether new PCP
extensions are needed.
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 November 17, 2013.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. 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.
Boucadair & Penno Expires November 17, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft PCP Failure Scenarios May 2013
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. PCP Client Failure Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1. Change of the IP Address of The PCP Server . . . . . . . 2
2.2. Application Crash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3. PCP Client Crash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.4. Change of the Internal IP Address . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.5. Change of the CPE WAN IP Address . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.6. UPnP IGD/PCP IWF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Restart or Failure of the PCP Server . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Basic Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Clear PCP Mappings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3. State Redundancy is Enabled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.4. Cold-Standby without State Redundancy . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.5. Anycast Redundancy Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Appendix A. PCP State Synchronization: Overview . . . . . . . . 9
Appendix B. GET/NEXT Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
B.1. OpCode Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
B.2. OpCode-Specific Result Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
B.3. Ordering and Equality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
B.4. NEXT Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
B.5. GET/NEXT PCP Client Theory of Operation . . . . . . . . . 14
B.6. GET/NEXT PCP Server Theory of Operation . . . . . . . . . 14
B.7. Flow Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1. Introduction
This document discusses several failure scenarios that may occur when
deploying PCP [RFC6887].
2. PCP Client Failure Scenarios
2.1. Change of the IP Address of The PCP Server
When a new IP address is used to reach its PCP Server, the PCP Client
must re-create all of its explicit dynamic mappings using the newly
discovered IP address.
Boucadair & Penno Expires November 17, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft PCP Failure Scenarios May 2013
The PCP Client must undertake the same process as per refreshing an
existing explicit dynamic mapping (see [RFC6887]); the only
difference is the PCP requests are sent to a distinct IP address. No
specific behavior is required from the PCP Server for handling these
requests.
Proposed Action: No particular extension is required to be added
to the base specification to mitigate this failure scenario.
2.2. Application Crash
When a fatal error is encountered by an application relying on PCP to
open explicit dynamic mappings on an upstream device, and upon the
restart of that application, the PCP Client should issue appropriate
requests to refresh the explicit dynamic mappings of that application
(e.g., clear old mappings and install new ones using the new port
number used by the application).
If the same port number is used but a distinct Mapping Nonce is
generated, the request will be rejected with a NOT_AUTHORIZED error
with the Lifetime of the error indicating duration of that existing
mapping (see Section 2.7 of [I-D.boucadair-pcp-flow-examples]).
Proposed Action: A solution to recover the Mapping Nonce used when
instantiating the mapping may be envisaged; this solution may not
be viable if PCP authentication is not in use. Mapping Nonce
recovery in the simple PCP threat model (especially when Mapping
Check validation is enabled) induces the same security threated as
those discussed in [RFC6887].
If a distinct port number is used by the application to bound its
service (i.e., a new internal port number is to be signaled in PCP),
the PCP Server may honor the refresh requests if the per-subscriber
quota is not exceeded. A distinct external port number would be
assigned by the PCP Server due to the presence of "stale" explicit
dynamic mapping(s) associated with the "old" port number.
Proposed Action: To avoid this inconvenience induced by stale
explicit dynamic mappings, the PCP Client may clear the "old"
mappings before issuing the refresh requests; but this would
require the PCP Client to store the information about the "old"
port number. This can be easy to solve if the PCP Client is
embedded in the application. In some scenarios, this is not so
easy because the PCP Client may handle PCP requests on behalf of
several applications and no means to identify the requesting
application may be supported. Means to identify the application
may be envisaged.
Boucadair & Penno Expires November 17, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft PCP Failure Scenarios May 2013
[RFC6887] does not allow a PCP Client to issue a request to delete
all the explicit dynamic mappings associated with an internal IP
address. If a PCP Client is allowed to clear all mappings bound
to the same IP address, this would have negative impact on other
applications and PCP Client(s) which may use the same internal IP
address to instruct their explicit dynamic mappings in the PCP
Server.
2.3. PCP Client Crash
The PCP Client may encounter a fatal error leading to its restart.
In such case, the internal IP address and port numbers used by
requesting applications are not impacted. Therefore, the explicit
dynamic mappings as maintained by the PCP Server are accurate and
there is no need to refresh them.
On the PCP Client side, a new UDP port should be assigned to issue
PCP requests. As a consequence, if outstanding requests have been
sent to the PCP Server, the responses are likely to be lost.
If the PCP Client stores its explicit dynamic mappings in a
persistent memory, there is no need to retrieve the list of active
mappings from the PCP Server.
Proposed Action: If several PCP Clients are co-located on the same
host, related PCP mapping tables should be uniquely distinguished
(e.g., a PCP Client does not delete explicit dynamic mappings
instructed by another PCP Client).
If the PCP Client does not store the explicit dynamic mappings and
new Mapping Nonces are assigned, the PCP Server will reject to
refresh these mappings.
Proposed Action: This issue can be solved if the PCP Client uses
GET OpCode (Appendix B) to recover the mapping nonces used when
instantiating the mappings if PCP authentication is used or
Mapping Nonce validation check is disabled.
2.4. Change of the Internal IP Address
When a new IP address is assigned to a host embedding a PCP Client,
the PCP Client must install on the PCP Server all the explicit
dynamic mappings it manages, using the new assigned IP address as the
internal IP address. The hinted external port number won't be
assigned by the PCP Server since a "stale" mapping is already
instantiated by the PCP Server (but it is associated with a distinct
internal IP address).
Boucadair & Penno Expires November 17, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft PCP Failure Scenarios May 2013
For a host configured with several addresses, the PCP Client must
maintain a record about the target IP address it used when issuing
its PCP requests. If no record is maintained and upon a change of
the IP address or de-activation of an interface, the PCP-instructed
explicit dynamic mappings are broken and inbound communications will
fail to be delivered.
Depending on the configured policies, the PCP Server may honor all or
part of the requests received from the PCP Client. Upon receipt of
the response from the PCP Server, the PCP Client must update its
local PCP state with the new assigned port numbers and external IP
address.
Proposed Action: Because of the possible negative impact if the
quota is exceed due to the presence of stale mappings (see the
example in Section 2.14 of [I-D.boucadair-pcp-flow-examples]), a
procedure to clear stale mappings may have some benefits.
A PCP Client may be used to manage explicit dynamic mappings on
behalf of a third party (i.e., the PCP Client and the third party are
not co-located on the same host). If a new internal IP address is
assigned to that third party (e.g., webcam), the PCP Client should be
instructed to delete the old mapping(s) and create new one(s) using
the new assigned internal IP address. When the PCP Client is co-
located with the DHCP server (e.g., PCP Proxy [I-D.ietf-pcp-proxy],
IWF in the CP router [I-D.ietf-pcp-upnp-igd-interworking]), the state
can be updated using the state of the local DHCP server. Otherwise,
it is safe to recommend the use of static internal IP addresses if
PCP is used to configure third-party explicit dynamic mappings.
Proposed Action: No particular extension is required to be added
to the base specification to mitigate this failure scenario.
2.5. Change of the CPE WAN IP Address
The change of the IP address of the WAN interface of the CPE would
have an impact on the accuracy of the explicit dynamic mappings
instantiated in the PCP Server:
o For the DS-Lite case [RFC6333]: if a new IPv6 address is used by
the B4 element when encapsulating IPv4 packets in IPv6 ones, the
explicit dynamic mappings should be refreshed: If the PCP Client
is embedded in the B4, the refresh operation is triggered by the
change of the B4 IPv6 address. This would be more complicated
when the PCP Client is located in a device behind the B4. If a
PCP Proxy is embedded in the CPE, the proxy can use ANNOUNCE
OpCode towards internal IPv4 hosts behind the DS-Lite CPE.
Boucadair & Penno Expires November 17, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft PCP Failure Scenarios May 2013
o For the NAT64 case [RFC6146], any change of the assigned IPv6
prefix delegated to the CPE will be detected by the PCP Client
(because this leads to the allocation of a new IPv6 address). The
PCP Client has to undertake the operation described in
Section 2.4.
o For the NAT444 case, similar problems are encountered because the
PCP Client has no reasonable way to detect the CPE's WAN address
changed.
Proposed Action: Means to help detecting the CPE's WAN address
change would help in mitigating this failure scenario.
2.6. UPnP IGD/PCP IWF
In the event an UPnP IGD/PCP IWF [I-D.ietf-pcp-upnp-igd-interworking]
fails to renew a mapping, there is no mechanism to inform the UPnP
Control Point about this failure.
Proposed Action: This issue can not be solved.
On the reboot of the IWF, if no mapping table is maintained in a
permanent storage, "stale" mappings will be maintained by the PCP
Server and per-user quota will be consumed. This is even exacerbated
if new mapping nonces are assigned by the IWF.
Proposed Action: This issue can be soften by synchronizing the
mapping table owing to the invocation of the GET OpCode defined in
Appendix B. This procedure is supported only if Mapping Nonce
validation checks are disabled.
3. Restart or Failure of the PCP Server
This section covers failure scenarios encountered by the PCP Server.
3.1. Basic Rule
In any situation the PCP Server loses all or part of its PCP state,
the Epoch value must be reset when replying to received requests.
Doing so would allow PCP Client to audit its explicit dynamic mapping
table.
If the state is not lost, the PCP Server must not reset the Epoch
value returned to requesting PCP Clients.
Proposed Action: No action is required to update the base PCP
specification for this failure scenario.
Boucadair & Penno Expires November 17, 2013 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft PCP Failure Scenarios May 2013
3.2. Clear PCP Mappings
When a command line or a configuration change is enforced to clear
all or a subset of PCP explicit dynamic mappings maintained by the
PCP Server, the PCP Server must reset its Epoch to zero value.
In order to avoid all PCP Clients to update their explicit dynamic
mappings, the PCP Server should reset the Epoch to zero value only
for impacted users.
Proposed Action: No action is required to update the base PCP
specification for this failure scenario.
3.3. State Redundancy is Enabled
When state redundancy is enabled, the state is not lost during
failure events. Failures are therefore transparent to requesting PCP
Clients. When a backup device takes over, Epoch must not be reset to
zero.
Proposed Action: No action is required to update the base PCP
specification for this failure scenario.
3.4. Cold-Standby without State Redundancy
In this section we assume that a redundancy mechanisms is configured
between a primary PCP-controlled device and a backup one but without
activating any state synchronization for the PCP-instructed explicit
dynamic mappings between the backup and the primary devices.
If the primary PCP-controlled device fails and the backup one takes
over, the PCP Server must reset the Epoch to zero value. Doing so
would allow PCP Clients to detect the loss of states in the PCP
Server and proceed to state synchronization.
Proposed Action: No action is required to update the base PCP
specification for this failure scenario.
3.5. Anycast Redundancy Mode
When an anycast-based mode is deployed (i.e., the same IP address is
used to reach several PCP Servers) for redundancy reasons, the change
of the PCP Server which handles the requests of a given PCP Client
won't be detected by that PCP Client.
Tweaking the Epoch (Section 8.5 of [RFC6887]) may help to detect the
loss of state and therefore to re-create missing explicit dynamic
mappings.
Boucadair & Penno Expires November 17, 2013 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft PCP Failure Scenarios May 2013
Proposed Action: No action is required to update the base PCP
specification for this failure scenario.
4. Security Considerations
PCP-related security consideratiosn are discussed in [RFC6887].
5. IANA Considerations
No action is required from IANA.
6. Acknowledgements
Francis Dupont contributed text to this document. Many thanks to
him.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-pcp-proxy]
Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and D. Wing, "Port Control
Protocol (PCP) Proxy Function", draft-ietf-pcp-proxy-02
(work in progress), February 2013.
[I-D.ietf-pcp-upnp-igd-interworking]
Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and D. Wing, "Universal Plug and
Play (UPnP) Internet Gateway Device (IGD)-Port Control
Protocol (PCP) Interworking Function", draft-ietf-pcp-
upnp-igd-interworking-10 (work in progress), April 2013.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC6887] Wing, D., Cheshire, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and P.
Selkirk, "Port Control Protocol (PCP)", RFC 6887, April
2013.
7.2. Informative References
[I-D.boucadair-pcp-flow-examples]
Boucadair, M., "PCP Flow Examples", draft-boucadair-pcp-
flow-examples-00 (work in progress), February 2013.
[RFC6146] Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful
NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6
Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, April 2011.
Boucadair & Penno Expires November 17, 2013 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft PCP Failure Scenarios May 2013
[RFC6333] Durand, A., Droms, R., Woodyatt, J., and Y. Lee, "Dual-
Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4
Exhaustion", RFC 6333, August 2011.
Appendix A. PCP State Synchronization: Overview
The following sketches the state synchronization logic:
o One element (i.e., PCP Client/host/application, PCP Server, PCP
Proxy, PCP IWF) of the chain is REQUIRED to use stable storage
o If the PCP Client (resp., the PCP Server) crashes and restarts it
just have to synchronize with the PCP Server (resp., the PCP
Client);
o If both crash then one has to use stable storage and we fall back
in the previous case as soon as we know which one (the Epoch value
gives this information);
o PCP Server -> PCP Client not-disruptive synchronization requires a
GET/NEXT mechanism to retrieve the state from the PCP Server;
without this mechanism the only way to put the PCP Server in a
known state is for the PCP Client to send a delete all request, a
clearly disruptive operation.
o PCP Client -> PCP Server synchronization is done by a re-create or
refresh of the state. The PCP Client MAY retrieve the PCP Server
state in order to prevent stale explicit dynamic mappings.
Appendix B. GET/NEXT Operation
This section defines a new PCP OpCode called GET and its associated
Option NEXT.
These PCP Opcode and Option are used by the PCP Client to retrieve an
explicit mapping or to walk through the explicit dynamic mapping
table maintained by the PCP Server for this subscriber and retrieves
a list of explicit dynamic mapping entries it instantiated.
GET can also be used by a NoC to retrieve the list of mappings for a
given subscriber.
B.1. OpCode Format
The GET OpCode payload contains a Filter used for explicit dynamic
mapping matching: only the explicit dynamic mappings of the
subscriber which match the Filter in a request are considered so
could be returned in response.
Boucadair & Penno Expires November 17, 2013 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft PCP Failure Scenarios May 2013
Implementation Note: Some existing implementations use 98 (0x62)
codepoint for GET OpCode, 131 for AMBIGUOUS error code, and 131
(0x83) for NEXT Option.
The layout of GET OpCode is shown in Figure 1.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Protocol | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
: Filter internal IP address (always 128 bits) :
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
: Filter external IP address (always 128 bits) :
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Filter internal port | Filter external port |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: GET: OpCode format
For all fields, the value 0 in a request means wildcard filter/any
value matches. Of course this has to be sound: no defined port with
protocol set to any.
These fields are described below:
Protocol: Same than for MAP [RFC6887].
Reserved: MUST be sent as 0 and MUST be ignored when received.
Filter internal IP address: Conveys the internal IP address
(including an unspecified IPv4IPv6 address). The encoding of this
field follows Section 5 of [RFC6887].
Filter external IP address: Conveys the external IP address
(including an unspecified IPv4IPv6 address). The encoding of this
field follows Section 5 of [RFC6887].
Filter internal port: The internal port (including 0).
Filter external port: The external port (including 0).
Boucadair & Penno Expires November 17, 2013 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft PCP Failure Scenarios May 2013
Responses include a bit-to-bit copy of the OpCode found in the
request.
B.2. OpCode-Specific Result Code
This OpCode defines two new specific Result Code
TBD: NONEXIST_MAP, e.g., no explicit dynamic mapping matching the
Filter was found.
TBD: AMBIGUOUS. This code is returned when the PCP Server is not
able to decide which mapping to return. Existing implementations
use 131 as codepoint.
B.3. Ordering and Equality
The PCP server is required to implement an order between matching
explicit dynamic mappings. The only property of this order is to be
stable: it doesn't change (*) between two GET requests with the same
Filter.
(*) "change" means two mappings are not gratuitously swapped:
expiration, renewal or creation are authorized to change the order
but they are at least expected by the PCP client.
[Ed. Note: We have two proposals for the order: lexicographical
order and lifetime order. Both work, this should be left to the
implementor.]
Equality is defined by:
o same protocol and;
o same internal address and;
o same external address and;
o same internal port and;
o same external port.
B.4. NEXT Option
Formal definition:
Name: NEXT
Number: at most one in requests, any in responses.
Purpose: carries a Locator in requests, matching explicit dynamic
mappings greater than the Locator in responses.
Boucadair & Penno Expires November 17, 2013 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft PCP Failure Scenarios May 2013
Is valid for OpCodes: GET OpCode.
Length: variable, the minimum is 11.
May appear in: both requests and responses.
Maximum occurrences: one for requests, bounded by maximum message
size for PCP responses [RFC6887].
The layout of the NEXT Option is shown in Figure 2.
Version=1
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Protocol | Reserved | MORE/END |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
: Mapping internal IP address (always 128 bits) :
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
: Mapping external IP address (always 128 bits) :
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Mapping remaining lifetime |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Mapping internal port | Mapping external port |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Mapping Options :
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Version=2
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: Mapping Nonce (96 bits) :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Protocol | Reserved | MORE/END |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
: Mapping internal IP address (always 128 bits) :
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
: Mapping external IP address (always 128 bits) :
Boucadair & Penno Expires November 17, 2013 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft PCP Failure Scenarios May 2013
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Mapping remaining lifetime |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Mapping internal port | Mapping external port |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Mapping Options :
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: NEXT: Option format
In requests the NEXT Option carries a Locator: a position in the list
of explicit dynamic mappings which match the Filter. The following
two useful forms of Locators are considered:
o the "Undefined" form where the Protocol, Addresses, Ports fields
are set to zero.
o the "Defined" form where none of the Protocol, Addresses and Ports
is set to zero.
The new fields in a Locator (a.k.a., the NEXT Option in a GET
request) are described below:
MORE/END: The value 0 denotes "MORE" and means the response MAY
include multiple NEXT Options; a value other than 0 (1 is
RECOMMENDED) denotes "END" and means the response SHALL include at
most one NEXT Option.
Mapping remaining lifetime: MUST be sent as 0 and MUST be ignored
when received.
Mapping Options: The Option Codes of the PCP Client wants to get in
the response (e.g., THIRD_PARTY). The format is the same than for
the UNPROCESSED Option (see rev 17 of[RFC6887]).
In responses the NEXT Options carry the returned explicit dynamic
mappings, one per NEXT Option. The fields are described below:
Protocol: The protocol of the returned mapping.
MORE/END: The value 0 when there are explicit dynamic mapping
matching the Filter and greater than this returned mapping; a
value other than 0 (1 is RECOMMENDED) when the return mapping is
the greatest explicit dynamic mapping matching the Filter.
Boucadair & Penno Expires November 17, 2013 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft PCP Failure Scenarios May 2013
Mapping internal IP address: the internal address of the returned
mapping. The encoding of this field follows Section 5 of
[RFC6887].
Mapping external IP address: the external address of the returned
mapping. The encoding of this field follows Section 5 of
[RFC6887].
Mapping remaining lifetime: The remaining lifetime in seconds of the
returned mapping.
Mapping internal port: the internal port of the returned mapping.
Mapping external port: the external port of the returned mapping.
Mapping Options: An embedded list of option values. Each
corresponding Option Code MUST be present in the request NEXT
Option, each option MUST be related to the returned mapping or not
related to any mapping.
B.5. GET/NEXT PCP Client Theory of Operation
GET requests without a NEXT Option have low usage but with a full
wildcard Filter they ask the PCP Server to know if it has at least
one explicit dynamic mapping for this subscriber.
GET requests with an END NEXT Option are "pure" GET: they asks for
the status and/or the remaining lifetime or options of a specific
explicit dynamic mapping. It is recommended to use an Undefined
Locator and to use the Filter to identify the mapping.
GET requests with a MORE NEXT Option are for the whole explicit
dynamic mapping table retrieval from the PCP Server. The initial
request contains an Undefined Locator, other requests a Defined
Locator filled by a copy of the last returned mapping with the
Lifetime and Option fields reseted to the original values. An END
NEXT Option marks the end of the retrieval.
B.6. GET/NEXT PCP Server Theory of Operation
The PCP Server behavior is described below:
o on the reception of a valid GET request the ordered list of
explicit dynamic mapping of the subscriber matching the given
Filter is (conceptually) built.
o if the list is empty a NONEXIST_MAP error response is returned.
It includes no NEXT Option.
Boucadair & Penno Expires November 17, 2013 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft PCP Failure Scenarios May 2013
o the list is scanned to find the Locator using the Equality defined
in Appendix B.3. If it is found the mappings less than the
Locator are removed from the list, so the result is a list which
begins by the mapping equals to the Locator followed by greater
mappings.
o if the NEXT Option in the request is an END one, the first mapping
of the list is returned in an only NEXT option, marked END if the
list contains only this mapping, marked MORE otherwise.
o if the NEXT option in the request is a MORE one, as many as can
fit mappings are returned in order in the response, marked as MORE
but if the whole list can be returned the last is marked END.
"Returned" means to include required options when they are defined
for a mapping: if the mapping M has 3 REMOTE_PEER_FILTERs and the
REMOTE_PEER_FILTER code was in the request NEXT, the NEXT carrying M
will get the 3 REMOTE_PEER_FILTER options embedded.
B.7. Flow Examples
As an illustration example, let's consider the following explicit
dynamic mapping table is maintained by the PCP Server:
+------+--------------+----------+-----------+----------+-----------+
| Pro | Internal IP | Internal | External | External | Remaining |
| | Address | Port | IP | Port | Lifetime |
| | | | Address | | |
+------+--------------+----------+-----------+----------+-----------+
| UDP | 198.51.100.1 | 25655 | 192.0.2.1 | 15659 | 1659 |
| TCP | 198.51.100.2 | 12354 | 192.0.2.1 | 32654 | 3600 |
| TCP | 198.51.100.2 | 8596 | 192.0.2.1 | 25659 | 6000 |
| UDP | 198.51.100.1 | 19856 | 192.0.2.1 | 42654 | 7200 |
| TCP | 198.51.100.1 | 15775 | 192.0.2.1 | 32652 | 9000 |
+------+--------------+----------+-----------+----------+-----------+
Table 1: Excerpt of a mapping table
As shown in Table 1, the PCP Server sorts the explicit dynamic
mapping table using the internal IP address and the remaining
lifetime.
Figure 3 illustrates the exchange that occurs when a PCP Client tries
to retrieve the information related to a non-existing explicit
dynamic mapping.
+------+ +------+
| PCP | | PCP |
Boucadair & Penno Expires November 17, 2013 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft PCP Failure Scenarios May 2013
|Client| |Server|
+------+ +------+
| (1) PCP GET Request |
| protocol= TCP |
| internal-ip-address= 198.51.100.1 |
| internal-port= 59864 |
| Undefined Locator |
|---------------------------------->|
| |
| (2) PCP GET Response |
| error= NONEXIST_MAP |
|<----------------------------------|
| |
Figure 3: Example of a failed GET operation
Figure 4 shows an example of a PCP Client which retrieves
successfully an existing mapping from the PCP Server.
+------+ +------+
| PCP | | PCP |
|Client| |Server|
+------+ +------+
| (1) PCP GET Request |
| protocol= TCP |
| internal-ip-address= 198.51.100.1 |
| internal-port= 25655 |
| Undefined Locator |
|---------------------------------->|
| |
| (2) PCP GET Response |
| END |
| protocol= TCP |
| internal-ip-address= 198.51.100.1 |
| internal-port= 25655 |
| external-ip-address= 192.0.2.1 |
| external-port= 15659 |
| remaining-lifetime= 1659 |
|<----------------------------------|
| |
| (3) PCP MAP4 Request |
| protocol= TCP |
| internal-ip-address= 198.51.100.1 |
| internal-port= 25655 |
| external-ip-address= 192.0.2.1 |
| external-port= 15659 |
| requested-lifetime= 0 |
Boucadair & Penno Expires November 17, 2013 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft PCP Failure Scenarios May 2013
|---------------------------------->|
| |
Figure 4: Example of a successful GET operation
In reference to Figure 5, the PCP Server returns the explicit dynamic
mappings having the internal address equal to 192.0.2.1 ordered by
increasing remaining lifetime.
+------+ +------+
| PCP | | PCP |
|Client| |Server|
+------+ +------+
| (1) PCP GET Request |
| internal-ip-address= 198.51.100.2 |
| Undefined Locator |
|---------------------------------->|
| |
| (2) PCP GET Response |
| MORE |
| protocol= TCP |
| internal-ip-address= 198.51.100.2 |
| internal-port= 12354 |
| external-ip-address= 192.0.2.1 |
| external-port= 32654 |
| remaining-lifetime= 3600 |
| END |
| protocol= TCP |
| internal-ip-address= 198.51.100.2 |
| internal-port= 8596 |
| external-ip-address= 192.0.2.1 |
| external-port= 25659 |
| remaining-lifetime= 6000 |
|<----------------------------------|
| |
Figure 5: Flow example of GET/NEXT
In reference to Figure 6, the PCP Server returns the explicit dynamic
mappings having the internal address equal to 192.0.2.2 ordered by
increasing remaining lifetime. In this example, the same internal
port is used for TCP and UDP.
+------+ +------+
| PCP | | PCP |
|Client| |Server|
+------+ +------+
| (1) PCP GET Request |
Boucadair & Penno Expires November 17, 2013 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft PCP Failure Scenarios May 2013
| internal-ip-address= 198.51.100.1 |
| internal-port= 25655 |
| Undefined Locator |
|---------------------------------->|
| |
| (2) PCP GET Response |
| MORE |
| protocol= UDP |
| internal-ip-address= 198.51.100.1 |
| internal-port= 25655 |
| external-ip-address= 192.0.2.1 |
| external-port= 15659 |
| remaining-lifetime= 1659 |
| END |
| protocol= TCP |
| internal-ip-address= 198.51.100.1 |
| internal-port= 25655 |
| external-ip-address= 192.0.2.1 |
| external-port= 32652 |
| remaining-lifetime= 9000 |
|<----------------------------------|
| |
Figure 6: Flow example of GET/NEXT: same internal port number
Authors' Addresses
Mohamed Boucadair
France Telecom
Rennes 35000
France
Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Reinaldo Penno
Cisco
USA
Email: repenno@cisco.com
Boucadair & Penno Expires November 17, 2013 [Page 18]