Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-pcp-base
draft-ietf-pcp-base
PCP working group D. Wing, Ed.
Internet-Draft Cisco
Intended status: Standards Track S. Cheshire
Expires: May 11, 2013 Apple
M. Boucadair
France Telecom
R. Penno
Cisco
P. Selkirk
ISC
November 7, 2012
Port Control Protocol (PCP)
draft-ietf-pcp-base-29
Abstract
The Port Control Protocol allows an IPv6 or IPv4 host to control how
incoming IPv6 or IPv4 packets are translated and forwarded by a
network address translator (NAT) or simple firewall, and also allows
a host to optimize its outgoing NAT keepalive messages.
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 May 11, 2013.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 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
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1. Deployment Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2. Supported Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3. Single-homed Customer Premises Network . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Relationship between PCP Server and its NAT/firewall . . . . 11
5. Note on Fixed-Size Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Protocol Design Note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Common Request and Response Header Format . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.1. Request Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.2. Response Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.3. Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.4. Result Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
8. General PCP Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
8.1. General PCP Client: Generating a Request . . . . . . . . 22
8.1.1. PCP Client Retransmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
8.2. General PCP Server: Processing a Request . . . . . . . . 25
8.3. General PCP Client: Processing a Response . . . . . . . . 27
8.4. Multi-Interface Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
8.5. Epoch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
9. Version Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
10. Introduction to MAP and PEER Opcodes . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
10.1. For Operating a Server . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
10.2. For Operating a Symmetric Client/Server . . . . . . . . . 36
10.3. For Reducing NAT or Firewall Keepalive Messages . . . . . 38
10.4. For Restoring Lost Implicit TCP Dynamic Mapping State . . 39
11. MAP Opcode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
11.1. MAP Operation Packet Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
11.2. Generating a MAP Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
11.2.1. Renewing a Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
11.3. Processing a MAP Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
11.4. Processing a MAP Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
11.5. Address Change Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
11.6. Learning the External IP Address Alone . . . . . . . . . 50
12. PEER Opcode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
12.1. PEER Operation Packet Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
12.2. Generating a PEER Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
12.3. Processing a PEER Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
12.4. Processing a PEER Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
13. Options for MAP and PEER Opcodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
13.1. THIRD_PARTY Option for MAP and PEER Opcodes . . . . . . . 58
13.2. PREFER_FAILURE Option for MAP Opcode . . . . . . . . . . 60
13.3. FILTER Option for MAP Opcode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
14. Rapid Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
14.1. ANNOUNCE Opcode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
14.1.1. ANNOUNCE Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
14.1.2. Generating and Processing a Solicited ANNOUNCE
Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
14.1.3. Generating and Processing an Unsolicited ANNOUNCE
Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
14.2. PCP Mapping Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
15. Mapping Lifetime and Deletion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
15.1. Lifetime Processing for the MAP Opcode . . . . . . . . . 71
16. Implementation Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
16.1. Implementing MAP with EDM port-mapping NAT . . . . . . . 72
16.2. Lifetime of Explicit and Implicit Dynamic Mappings . . . 73
16.3. PCP Failure Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
16.3.1. Recreating Mappings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
16.3.2. Maintaining Mappings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
16.3.3. SCTP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
16.4. Source Address Replicated in PCP Header . . . . . . . . . 75
16.5. State Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
17. Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
17.1. Ingress Filtering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
17.2. Mapping Quota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
18. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
18.1. Simple Threat Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
18.1.1. Attacks Considered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
18.1.2. Deployment Examples Supporting the Simple Threat
Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
18.2. Advanced Threat Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
18.3. Residual Threats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
18.3.1. Denial of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
18.3.2. Ingress Filtering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
18.3.3. Mapping Theft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
18.3.4. Attacks Against Server Discovery . . . . . . . . . . 82
19. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
19.1. Port Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
19.2. Opcodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
19.3. Result Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
19.4. Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
20. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
21. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
21.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
21.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
Appendix A. NAT-PMP Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Appendix B. Change History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
B.1. Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-28 to -29 . . . . . . . 88
B.2. Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-27 to -28 . . . . . . . 88
B.3. Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-26 to -27 . . . . . . . 88
B.4. Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-25 to -26 . . . . . . . 90
B.5. Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-24 to -25 . . . . . . . 90
B.6. Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-23 to -24 . . . . . . . 91
B.7. Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-22 to -23 . . . . . . . 93
B.8. Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-21 to -22 . . . . . . . 95
B.9. Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-20 to -21 . . . . . . . 95
B.10. Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-19 to -20 . . . . . . . 95
B.11. Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-18 to -19 . . . . . . . 95
B.12. Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-17 to -18 . . . . . . . 96
B.13. Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-16 to -17 . . . . . . . 96
B.14. Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-15 to -16 . . . . . . . 96
B.15. Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-14 to -15 . . . . . . . 97
B.16. Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-13 to -14 . . . . . . . 97
B.17. Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-12 to -13 . . . . . . . 98
B.18. Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-11 to -12 . . . . . . . 99
B.19. Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-10 to -11 . . . . . . . 99
B.20. Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-09 to -10 . . . . . . . 99
B.21. Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-08 to -09 . . . . . . . 99
B.22. Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-07 to -08 . . . . . . . 100
B.23. Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-06 to -07 . . . . . . . 101
B.24. Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-05 to -06 . . . . . . . 102
B.25. Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-04 to -05 . . . . . . . 104
B.26. Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-03 to -04 . . . . . . . 104
B.27. Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-02 to -03 . . . . . . . 105
B.28. Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-01 to -02 . . . . . . . 105
B.29. Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-00 to -01 . . . . . . . 106
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
1. Introduction
The Port Control Protocol (PCP) provides a mechanism to control how
incoming packets are forwarded by upstream devices such as Network
Address Translator IPv6/IPv4 (NAT64), Network Address Translator
IPv4/IPv4 (NAT44), IPv6 and IPv4 firewall devices, and a mechanism to
reduce application keepalive traffic. PCP is designed to be
implemented in the context of Carrier-Grade NATs (CGNs), small NATs
(e.g., residential NATs), as well as with dual-stack and IPv6-only
Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) routers, and all of the currently-
known transition scenarios towards IPv6-only CPE routers. PCP allows
hosts to operate servers for a long time (e.g., a network-attached
home security camera) or a short time (e.g., while playing a game or
on a phone call) when behind a NAT device, including when behind a
CGN operated by their Internet service provider or an IPv6 firewall
integrated in their CPE router.
PCP allows applications to create mappings from an external IP
address, protocol, and port to an internal IP address, protocol, and
port. These mappings are required for successful inbound
communications destined to machines located behind a NAT or a
firewall.
After creating a mapping for incoming connections, it is necessary to
inform remote computers about the IP address, protocol, and port for
the incoming connection. This is usually done in an application-
specific manner. For example, a computer game might use a rendezvous
server specific to that game (or specific to that game developer), a
SIP phone would use a SIP proxy, and a client using DNS-Based Service
Discovery [I-D.cheshire-dnsext-dns-sd] would use DNS Update [RFC2136]
[RFC3007]. PCP does not provide this rendezvous function. The
rendezvous function may support IPv4, IPv6, or both. Depending on
that support and the application's support of IPv4 or IPv6, the PCP
client may need an IPv4 mapping, an IPv6 mapping, or both.
Many NAT-friendly applications send frequent application-level
messages to ensure their session will not be timed out by a NAT.
These are commonly called "NAT keepalive" messages, even though they
are not sent to the NAT itself (rather, they are sent 'through' the
NAT). These applications can reduce the frequency of such NAT
keepalive messages by using PCP to learn (and influence) the NAT
mapping lifetime. This helps reduce bandwidth on the subscriber's
access network, traffic to the server, and battery consumption on
mobile devices.
Many NATs and firewalls include Application Layer Gateways (ALGs) to
create mappings for applications that establish additional streams or
accept incoming connections. ALGs incorporated into NATs may also
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
modify the application payload. Industry experience has shown that
these ALGs are detrimental to protocol evolution. PCP allows an
application to create its own mappings in NATs and firewalls,
reducing the incentive to deploy ALGs in NATs and firewalls.
2. Scope
2.1. Deployment Scenarios
PCP can be used in various deployment scenarios, including:
o Basic NAT [RFC3022]
o Network Address and Port Translation [RFC3022], such as commonly
deployed in residential NAT devices
o Carrier-Grade NAT [I-D.ietf-behave-lsn-requirements]
o Dual-Stack Lite (DS-Lite) [RFC6333]
o Layer-2 Aware NAT [I-D.miles-behave-l2nat]
o Dual-Stack Extra Lite [RFC6619]
o NAT64, both Stateless [RFC6145] and Stateful [RFC6146]
o IPv4 and IPv6 simple firewall control [RFC6092]
o IPv6-to-IPv6 Network Prefix Translation (NPTv6) [RFC6296]
2.2. Supported Protocols
The PCP Opcodes defined in this document are designed to support
transport-layer protocols that use a 16-bit port number (e.g., TCP,
UDP, SCTP [RFC4960], DCCP [RFC4340]). Protocols that do not use a
port number (e.g., RSVP, IPsec ESP [RFC4303], ICMP, ICMPv6) are
supported for IPv4 firewall, IPv6 firewall, and NPTv6 functions, but
are out of scope for any NAT functions.
2.3. Single-homed Customer Premises Network
PCP assumes a single-homed IP address model. That is, for a given IP
address of a host, only one default route exists to reach other hosts
on the Internet from that source IP address. This is important
because after a PCP mapping is created and an inbound packet (e.g.,
TCP SYN) is rewritten and delivered to a host, the outbound response
(e.g., TCP SYNACK) has to go through the same (reverse) path so it
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
passes through the same NAT to have the necessary inverse rewrite
performed. This restriction exists because otherwise there would
need to be a PCP-enabled NAT for every egress (because the host could
not reliably determine which egress path packets would take) and the
client would need to be able to reliably make the same internal/
external mapping in every NAT gateway, which in general is not
possible (because the other NATs might already have the necessary
External Port mapped to another host).
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 "Key words for use in
RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels" [RFC2119].
Internal Host:
A host served by a NAT gateway, or protected by a firewall. This
is the host that will receive incoming traffic resulting from a
PCP mapping request, or the host that initiated an implicit
dynamic outbound mapping (e.g., by sending a TCP SYN) across a
firewall or a NAT.
Remote Peer Host:
A host with which an Internal Host is communicating. This can
include another Internal Host (or even the same Internal Host); if
a NAT is involved, the NAT would need to hairpin the traffic
[RFC4787].
Internal Address:
The address of an Internal Host served by a NAT gateway or
protected by a firewall.
External Address:
The address of an Internal Host as seen by other Remote Peers on
the Internet with which the Internal Host is communicating, after
translation by any NAT gateways on the path. An External Address
is generally a public routable (i.e., non-private) address. In
the case of an Internal Host protected by a pure firewall, with no
address translation on the path, its External Address is the same
as its Internal Address.
Endpoint-Dependent Mapping (EDM): A term applied to NAT operation
where an implicit mapping created by outgoing traffic (e.g., TCP
SYN) from a single Internal Address, Protocol, and Port to
different Remote Peers and Ports may be assigned different
External Ports, and a subsequent PCP mapping request for that
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
Internal Address, Protocol, and Port may be assigned yet another
different External Port. This term encompasses both Address-
Dependent Mapping and Address and Port-Dependent Mapping
[RFC4787].
Endpoint-Independent Mapping (EIM): A term applied to NAT operation
where all mappings from a single Internal Address, Protocol, and
Port to different Remote Peers and Ports are all assigned the same
External Address and Port.
Remote Peer Address:
The address of a Remote Peer, as seen by the Internal Host. A
Remote Address is generally a publicly routable address. In the
case of a Remote Peer that is itself served by a NAT gateway, the
Remote Address may in fact be the Remote Peer's External Address,
but since this remote translation is generally invisible to
software running on the Internal Host, the distinction can safely
be ignored for the purposes of this document.
Third Party:
In the common case, an Internal Host manages its own Mappings
using PCP requests, and the Internal Address of those Mappings is
the same as the source IP address of the PCP request packet.
In the case where one device is managing Mappings on behalf of
some other device that does not implement PCP, the presence of the
THIRD_PARTY Option in the MAP request signifies that the specified
address, rather than the source IP address of the PCP request
packet, should be used as the Internal Address for the Mapping.
Mapping, Port Mapping, Port Forwarding:
A NAT mapping creates a relationship between an internal IP
address, protocol, and port, and an external IP address, protocol,
and port. More specifically, it creates a translation rule where
packets destined to the external IP and port are translated to the
internal IP address, protocol, and port, and vice versa. In the
case of a pure firewall, the "Mapping" is the identity function,
translating an internal IP address, protocol, and port number to
the same external IP address, protocol, and port number. Firewall
filtering, applied in addition to that identity mapping function,
is separate from the mapping itself.
Mapping Types:
There are three dimensions to classifying mapping types: how they
are created (implicitly/explicitly), their primary purpose
(outbound/inbound), and how they are deleted (dynamic/static).
Implicit mappings are created as a side-effect of some other
operation; explicit mappings are created by a mechanism explicitly
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
dealing with mappings. Outbound mappings exist primarily to
facilitate outbound communication; inbound mappings exist
primarily to facilitate inbound communication. Dynamic mappings
are deleted when their lifetime expires, or though other protocol
action; static mappings are permanent until the user chooses to
delete them.
* Implicit dynamic mappings are created implicitly as a side-
effect of traffic such as an outgoing TCP SYN or outgoing UDP
packet. Such packets were not originally designed explicitly
for creating NAT (or firewall) state, but they can have that
effect when they pass through a NAT (or firewall) device.
Implicit dynamic mappings usually have a finite lifetime,
though this lifetime is generally not known to the client using
them.
* Explicit dynamic mappings are created as a result of explicit
PCP MAP and PEER requests. Like a DHCP address lease, explicit
dynamic mappings have finite lifetime, and this lifetime is
communicated to the client. As with a DHCP address lease, if
the client wants a mapping to persist the client must prove
that it is still present by periodically renewing the mapping
to prevent it from expiring. If a PCP client goes away, then
any mappings it created will be automatically cleaned up when
they expire.
* Explicit static mappings are created by manual configuration
(e.g., via command-line interface or other user interface) and
persist until the user changes that manual configuration.
Both implicit and explicit dynamic mappings are dynamic in the
sense that they are created on demand, as requested (implicitly or
explicitly) by the Internal Host, and have a lifetime. After the
lifetime, the mapping is deleted unless the lifetime is extended
by action by the Internal Host (e.g., sending more traffic or
sending another PCP request).
Static mappings are by their nature always explicit. Static
mappings differ from explicit dynamic mappings in that their
lifetime is effectively infinite (they exist until manually
removed) but otherwise they behave exactly the same as explicit
MAP mappings.
While all mappings are by necessity bidirectional (most Internet
communication requires information to flow in both directions for
successful operation) when talking about mappings it can be
helpful to identify them loosely according to their 'primary'
purpose.
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
* Outbound mappings exist primarily to enable outbound
communication. For example, when a host calls connect() to
make an outbound connection, a NAT gateway will create an
implicit dynamic outbound mapping to facilitate that outbound
communication.
* Inbound mappings exist primarily to enable listening servers to
receive inbound connections. Generally, when a client calls
listen() to listen for inbound connections, a NAT gateway will
not implicitly create any mapping to facilitate that inbound
communication. A PCP MAP request can be used explicitly to
create a dynamic inbound mapping to enable the desired inbound
communication.
Explicit static (manual) mappings and explicit dynamic (MAP)
mappings both allow Internal Hosts to receive inbound traffic that
is not in direct response to any immediately preceding outbound
communication (i.e., to allow Internal Hosts to operate a "server"
that is accessible to other hosts on the Internet).
PCP Client:
A PCP software instance responsible for issuing PCP requests to a
PCP server. Several independent PCP Clients can exist on the same
host. Several PCP Clients can be located in the same local
network. A PCP Client can issue PCP requests on behalf of a third
party device for which it is authorized to do so. An interworking
function from Universal Plug and Play Internet Gateway Device
(UPnP IGDv1 [IGDv1]) to PCP is another example of a PCP Client. A
PCP server in a NAT gateway that is itself a client of another NAT
gateway (nested NAT) may itself act as a PCP client to the
upstream NAT.
PCP-Controlled Device:
A NAT or firewall that controls or rewrites packet flows between
internal hosts and remote peer hosts. PCP manages the Mappings on
this device.
PCP Server:
A PCP software instance that resides on the NAT or firewall that
receives PCP requests from the PCP client and creates appropriate
state in response to that request.
Subscriber:
The unit of billing for a commercial ISP. A subscriber may have a
single IP address from the commercial ISP (which can be shared
among multiple hosts using a NAT gateway, thereby making them
appear to be a single host to the ISP) or may have multiple IP
addresses provided by the commercial ISP. In either case, the IP
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
address or addresses provided by the ISP may themselves be further
translated by a Carrier-Grade NAT (CGN) operated by the ISP.
4. Relationship between PCP Server and its NAT/firewall
The PCP server receives and responds to PCP requests. The PCP server
functionality is typically a capability of a NAT or firewall device,
as shown in Figure 1. It is also possible for the PCP functionality
to be provided by some other device, which communicates with the
actual NAT(s) or firewall(s) via some other proprietary mechanism, as
long as from the PCP client's perspective such split operation is
indistinguishable from the integrated case.
+-----------------+
+------------+ | NAT or firewall |
| PCP client |-<network>-+ with +---<Internet>
+------------+ | PCP server |
+-----------------+
Figure 1: PCP-Enabled NAT or Firewall
A NAT or firewall device, between the PCP client and the Internet,
might implement simple or advanced firewall functionality. This may
be a side-effect of the technology implemented by the device (e.g., a
network address and port translator, by virtue of its port rewriting,
normally requires connections to be initiated from an inside host
towards the Internet), or this might be an explicit firewall policy
to deny unsolicited traffic from the Internet. Some firewall devices
deny certain unsolicited traffic from the Internet (e.g., TCP, UDP to
most ports) but allow certain other unsolicited traffic from the
Internet (e.g., UDP port 500 and IPsec ESP) [RFC6092]. Such default
filtering (or lack thereof) is out of scope of PCP itself. If a
client device wants to receive traffic and supports PCP, and does not
possess prior knowledge of such default filtering policy, it SHOULD
use PCP to request the necessary mappings to receive the desired
traffic.
5. Note on Fixed-Size Addresses
For simplicity in building and parsing request and response packets,
PCP always uses fixed-size 128-bit IP address fields for both IPv6
addresses and IPv4 addresses.
When the address field holds an IPv6 address, the fixed-size 128-bit
IP address field holds the IPv6 address stored as-is.
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
When the address field holds an IPv4 address, IPv4-mapped IPv6
addresses [RFC4291] are used (::ffff:0:0/96). This has the first 80
bits set to zero and the next 16 set to one, while its last 32 bits
are filled with the IPv4 address. This is unambiguously
distinguishable from a native IPv6 address, because an IPv4-mapped
IPv6 address [RFC4291] would not be valid for a mapping.
When checking for an IPv4-mapped IPv6 address, all of the first 96
bits MUST be checked for the pattern -- it is not sufficient to check
for ones in bits 81-96.
The all-zeroes IPv6 address MUST be expressed by filling the fixed-
size 128-bit IP address field with all zeroes (::).
The all-zeroes IPv4 address MUST be expressed by 80 bits of zeros, 16
bits of ones, and 32 bits of zeros (::ffff:0:0).
6. Protocol Design Note
PCP can be viewed as a request/response protocol, much like many
other UDP-based request/response protocols, and can be implemented
perfectly well as such. It can also be viewed as what might be
called a hint/notification protocol, and this observation can help
simplify implementations.
Rather than viewing the message streams between PCP client and PCP
server as following a strict request/response pattern, where every
response is associated with exactly one request, the message flows
can be viewed as two somewhat independent streams carrying
information in opposite directions:
o A stream of hints flowing from PCP client to PCP server, where the
client indicates to the server what it would like the state of its
mappings to be, and
o A stream of notifications flowing from PCP server to PCP client,
where the server informs the clients what the state of its
mappings actually is.
To an extent, some of this approach is required anyway in a UDP-based
request/response protocol, since UDP packets can be lost, duplicated,
or reordered.
In this view of the protocol, the client transmits hints to the
server at various intervals signaling its desires, and the server
transmits notifications to the client signaling the actual state of
its mappings. These two message flows are loosely correlated in that
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
a client request (hint) usually elicits a server response
(notification), but only loosely, in that a client request may result
in no server response (in the case of packet loss) and a server
response may be generated gratuitously without an immediately
preceding client request (in the case where server configuration
change, e.g. change of external IP address on a NAT gateway, results
in a change of mapping state).
The exact times that client requests are sent are influenced by a
client timing state machine taking into account whether (i) the
client has not yet received a response from the server for a prior
request (retransmission), or (ii) the client has previously received
a response from the server saying how long the indicated mapping
would remain active (renewal). This design philosophy is the reason
why PCP's retransmissions and renewals are exactly the same packet on
the wire. Typically, retransmissions are sent with exponentially
increasing intervals as the client waits for the server to respond,
whereas renewals are sent with exponentially decreasing intervals as
the expiry time approaches, but from the server's point of view both
packets are identical, and both signal the client's desire that the
stated mapping exist or continue to exist.
A PCP server usually sends responses as a direct result of client
requests, but not always. For example, if a server is too overloaded
to respond, it is allowed to silently ignore a request message and
let the client retransmit. Also, if external factors cause a NAT
gateway or firewall's configuration to change, then the PCP server
can send unsolicited responses to clients informing them of the new
state of their mappings. Such reconfigurations are expected to be
rare, because of the disruption they can cause to clients, but should
they happen, PCP provides a way for servers to communicate the new
state to clients promptly, without having to wait for the next
periodic renewal request.
This design goal helps explain why PCP request and response messages
have no transaction ID, because such a transaction ID is unnecessary,
and would unnecessarily limit the protocol and unnecessarily
complicate implementations. A PCP server response (i.e.
notification) is self-describing and complete. It communicates the
internal and external addresses, protocol, and ports for a mapping,
and its remaining lifetime. If the client does in fact currently
want such a mapping to exist then it can identify the mapping in
question from the internal address, protocol, and port, and update
its state to reflect the current external address and port, and
remaining lifetime. If a client does not currently want such a
mapping to exist then it can safely ignore the message. No client
action is required for unexpected mapping notifications. In today's
world a NAT gateway can have a static mapping, and the client device
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
has no explicit knowledge of this, and no way to change the fact.
Also, in today's world a client device can be connected directly to
the public Internet, with a globally-routable IP address, and in this
case it effectively has "mappings" for all of its listening ports.
Such a device has to be responsible for its own security, and cannot
rely on assuming that some other network device will be blocking all
incoming packets.
7. Common Request and Response Header Format
All PCP messages are sent over UDP, with a maximum UDP payload length
of 1100 octets. The PCP messages contain a request or response
header containing an Opcode, any relevant Opcode-specific
information, and zero or more Options. All numeric quantities larger
than a single octet (e.g. Result codes, Lifetimes, Epoch times,
etc.) are represented in conventional IETF network order, i.e. most
significant octet first. Non-numeric quantities are represented
as-is on all platforms, with no byte swapping (e.g. IP addresses and
ports are placed in PCP messages using the same representation as
when placed in IP or TCP headers).
The packet layout for the common header, and operation of the PCP
client and PCP server, are described in the following sections. The
information in this section applies to all Opcodes. Behavior of the
Opcodes defined in this document is described in Section 11 and
Section 12.
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
7.1. Request Header
All requests have the following format:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Version = 2 |R| Opcode | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Requested Lifetime (32 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| PCP Client's IP Address (128 bits) |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: :
: (optional) Opcode-specific information :
: :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: :
: (optional) PCP Options :
: :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Common Request Packet Format
These fields are described below:
Version: This document specifies protocol version 2. PCP clients
and servers compliant with this document use the value 2. This
field is used for version negotiation as described in Section 9.
R: Indicates Request (0) or Response (1).
Opcode: A seven-bit value specifying the operation to be performed.
Opcodes are defined in Section 11 and Section 12.
Reserved: 16 reserved bits. MUST be zero on transmission and MUST
be ignored on reception.
Requested Lifetime: An unsigned 32-bit integer, in seconds, ranging
from 0 to 2^32-1 seconds. This is used by the MAP and PEER
Opcodes defined in this document for their requested lifetime.
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
PCP Client's IP Address: The source IPv4 or IPv6 address in the IP
header used by the PCP client when sending this PCP request. IPv4
is represented using an IPv4-mapped IPv6 address. This is used to
detect an unexpected NAT on the path between the PCP client and
the PCP-controlled NAT or firewall device. See Section 8.1
Opcode-specific information: Payload data for this Opcode. The
length of this data is determined by the Opcode definition.
PCP Options: Zero, one, or more Options that are legal for both a
PCP request and for this Opcode. See Section 7.3.
7.2. Response Header
All responses have the following format:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Version = 2 |R| Opcode | Reserved | Result Code |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Lifetime (32 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Epoch Time (32 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Reserved (96 bits) |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: :
: (optional) Opcode-specific response data :
: :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: (optional) Options :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Common Response Packet Format
These fields are described below:
Version: Responses from servers compliant with this specification
MUST use version 2. This is set by the server.
R: Indicates Request (0) or Response (1). All Responses MUST use 1.
This is set by the server.
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
Opcode: The 7-bit Opcode value. The server copies this value from
the request.
Reserved: 8 reserved bits, MUST be sent as 0, MUST be ignored when
received. This is set by the server.
Result Code: The result code for this response. See Section 7.4 for
values. This is set by the server.
Lifetime: An unsigned 32-bit integer, in seconds, ranging from 0 to
2^32-1 seconds. On an error response, this indicates how long
clients should assume they'll get the same error response from
that PCP server if they repeat the same request. On a success
response for the PCP Opcodes that create a mapping (MAP and PEER),
the Lifetime field indicates the lifetime for this mapping. This
is set by the server.
Epoch Time: The server's Epoch time value. See Section 8.5 for
discussion. This value is set by the server, in both success and
error responses.
Reserved: 96 reserved bits. For requests that were successfully
parsed, this MUST be sent as 0, MUST be ignored when received.
This is set by the server. For requests that were not
successfully parsed, the server copies the last 96 bits of the PCP
Client's IP Address field from the request message into this
corresponding 96 bit field of the response.
Opcode-specific information: Payload data for this Opcode. The
length of this data is determined by the Opcode definition.
PCP Options: Zero, one, or more Options that are legal for both a
PCP response and for this Opcode. See Section 7.3.
7.3. Options
A PCP Opcode can be extended with one or more Options. Options can
be used in requests and responses. The design decisions in this
specification about whether to include a given piece of information
in the base Opcode format or in an Option were an engineering trade-
off between packet size and code complexity. For information that is
usually (or always) required, placing it in the fixed Opcode data
results in simpler code to generate and parse the packet, because the
information is a fixed location in the Opcode data, but wastes space
in the packet in the event that field is all-zeroes because the
information is not needed or not relevant. For information that is
required less often, placing it in an Option results in slightly more
complicated code to generate and parse packets containing that
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
Option, but saves space in the packet when that information is not
needed. Placing information in an Option also means that an
implementation that never uses that information doesn't even need to
implement code to generate and parse it. For example, a client that
never requests mappings on behalf of some other device doesn't need
to implement code to generate the THIRD_PARTY Option, and a PCP
server that doesn't implement the necessary security measures to
create third-party mappings safely doesn't need to implement code to
parse the THIRD_PARTY Option.
Options use the following Type-Length-Value format:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Option Code | Reserved | Option Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: (optional) data :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: Options Header
The description of the fields is as follows:
Option Code: 8 bits. Its most significant bit indicates if this
Option is mandatory (0) or optional (1) to process.
Reserved: 8 bits. MUST be set to 0 on transmission and MUST be
ignored on reception.
Option Length: 16 bits. Indicates the length of the enclosed data,
in octets. Options with length of 0 are allowed. Options that
are not a multiple of four octets long are followed by one, two,
or three zero octets to pad their effective length in the packet
to be a multiple of four octets. The Option Length reflects the
semantic length of the option, not including any padding octets.
data: Option data.
If several Options are included in a PCP request, they MAY be encoded
in any order by the PCP client, but MUST be processed by the PCP
server in the order in which they appear. It is the responsibility
of the PCP client to ensure the server has sufficient room to reply
without exceeding the 1100 octet size limit; if its reply would
exceed that size, the server generates an error.
If, while processing a PCP request, including its options, an error
is encountered that causes a PCP error response to be generated, the
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
PCP request MUST cause no state change in the PCP server or the PCP-
controlled device (i.e., it rolls back any changes it might have made
while processing the request). Such an error response MUST consist
of a complete copy of the request packet with the error code and
other appropriate fields set in the header.
An Option MAY appear more than once in a request or in a response, if
permitted by the definition of the Option. If the Option's
definition allows the Option to appear only once but it appears more
than once in a request, and the Option is understood by the PCP
server, the PCP server MUST respond with the MALFORMED_OPTION result
code. If the PCP server encounters an invalid option (e.g., PCP
option length is longer than the UDP packet length) the error
MALFORMED_OPTION SHOULD be returned (rather than MALFORMED_REQUEST),
as that helps the client better understand how the packet was
malformed. If a PCP response would have exceeded the maximum PCP
message size, the PCP server SHOULD respond with MALFORMED_REQUEST.
If the overall Option structure of a request cannot successfully be
parsed (e.g. a nonsensical option length) the PCP server MUST
generate an error response with code MALFORMED_OPTION.
If the overall Option structure of a request is valid then how each
individual Option is handled is determined by the most significant
bit in the Option Code. If the most significant bit is set, handling
this Option is optional, and a PCP server MAY process or ignore this
Option, entirely at its discretion. If the most significant bit is
clear, handling this Option is mandatory, and a PCP server MUST
return the error MALFORMED_OPTION if the option contents are
malformed, or UNSUPP_OPTION if the Option is unrecognized,
unimplemented, or disabled, or if the client is not authorized to use
the Option. In error responses all options are returned. In success
responses all processed options are included and unprocessed options
are not included.
PCP clients are free to ignore any or all Options included in
responses, although naturally if a client explicitly requests an
Option where correct execution of that Option requires processing the
Option data in the response, that client is expected to implement
code to do that.
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
Different options are valid for different Opcodes. For example:
o The THIRD_PARTY Option is valid for both MAP and PEER Opcodes.
o The FILTER Option is valid only for the MAP Opcode (for the PEER
Opcode it would have no meaning).
o The PREFER_FAILURE Option is valid only for the MAP Opcode (for
the PEER Opcode, similar semantics are automatically implied).
7.4. Result Codes
The following result codes may be returned as a result of any Opcode
received by the PCP server. The only success result code is 0; other
values indicate an error. If a PCP server encounters multiple errors
during processing of a request, it SHOULD use the most specific error
message. Each error code below is classified as either a 'long
lifetime' error or a 'short lifetime' error, which provides guidance
to PCP server developers for the value of the Lifetime field for
these errors. It is RECOMMENDED that short lifetime errors use a 30
second lifetime and long lifetime errors use a 30 minute lifetime.
0 SUCCESS: Success.
1 UNSUPP_VERSION: The version number at the start of the PCP Request
header is not recognized by this PCP server. This is a long
lifetime error. This document describes PCP version 2.
2 NOT_AUTHORIZED: The requested operation is disabled for this PCP
client, or the PCP client requested an operation that cannot be
fulfilled by the PCP server's security policy. This is a long
lifetime error.
3 MALFORMED_REQUEST: The request could not be successfully parsed.
This is a long lifetime error.
4 UNSUPP_OPCODE: Unsupported Opcode. This is a long lifetime error.
5 UNSUPP_OPTION: Unsupported Option. This error only occurs if the
Option is in the mandatory-to-process range. This is a long
lifetime error.
6 MALFORMED_OPTION: Malformed Option (e.g., appears too many times,
invalid length). This is a long lifetime error.
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
7 NETWORK_FAILURE: The PCP server or the device it controls are
experiencing a network failure of some sort (e.g., has not
obtained an External IP address). This is a short lifetime error.
8 NO_RESOURCES: Request is well-formed and valid, but the server has
insufficient resources to complete the requested operation at this
time. For example, the NAT device cannot create more mappings at
this time, is short of CPU cycles or memory, or is unable to
handle the request due to some other temporary condition. The
same request may succeed in the future. This is a system-wide
error, different from USER_EX_QUOTA. This can be used as a catch-
all error, should no other error message be suitable. This is a
short lifetime error.
9 UNSUPP_PROTOCOL: Unsupported transport protocol, e.g. SCTP in a
NAT that handles only UDP and TCP. This is a long lifetime error.
10 USER_EX_QUOTA: This attempt to create a new mapping would exceed
this subscriber's port quota. This is a short lifetime error.
11 CANNOT_PROVIDE_EXTERNAL: The suggested external port and/or
external address cannot be provided. This error MUST only be
returned for:
* MAP requests that included the PREFER_FAILURE Option
(normal MAP requests will return an available external port)
* MAP requests for the SCTP protocol (PREFER_FAILURE is implied)
* PEER requests
See Section 13.2 for processing details. The error lifetime
depends on the reason for the failure.
12 ADDRESS_MISMATCH: The source IP address of the request packet does
not match the contents of the PCP Client's IP Address field, due
to an unexpected NAT on the path between the PCP client and the
PCP-controlled NAT or firewall. This is a long lifetime error.
13 EXCESSIVE_REMOTE_PEERS: The PCP server was not able to create the
filters in this request. This result code MUST only be returned
if the MAP request contained the FILTER Option. See Section 13.3
for processing information. This is a long lifetime error.
8. General PCP Operation
PCP messages MUST be sent over UDP [RFC0768]. Every PCP request
generates at least one response, so PCP does not need to run over a
reliable transport protocol.
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
When receiving multiple identical requests, the PCP server will
generate identical responses, provided the PCP server's state did not
change between those requests due to other activity. For example, if
a request is received while the PCP-controlled device has no mappings
available, it will generate an error response. If mappings become
available and then a (duplicated or re-transmitted) request is seen
by the server, it will generate a non-error response. A PCP client
MUST handle such updated responses for any request it sends, most
notably to support Rapid Recovery (Section 14). Also see the
Protocol Design Note (Section 6).
8.1. General PCP Client: Generating a Request
This section details operation specific to a PCP client, for any
Opcode. Procedures specific to the MAP Opcode are described in
Section 11, and procedures specific to the PEER Opcode are described
in Section 12.
Prior to sending its first PCP message, the PCP client determines
which server to use. The PCP client performs the following steps to
determine its PCP server:
1. if a PCP server is configured (e.g., in a configuration file or
via DHCP), that single configuration source is used as the list
of PCP Server(s), else;
2. the default router list (for IPv4 and IPv6) is used as the list
of PCP Server(s). Thus, if a PCP client has both an IPv4 and
IPv6 address, it will have an IPv4 PCP server (its IPv4 default
router) for its IPv4 mappings, and an IPv6 PCP server (its IPv6
default router) for its IPv6 mappings.
For the purposes of this document, only a single PCP server address
is supported. Should future specifications define configuration
methods that provide a longer list of PCP server addresses, those
specifications will define how clients select one or more addresses
from that list.
With that PCP server address, the PCP client formulates its PCP
request. The PCP request contains a PCP common header, PCP Opcode
and payload, and (possibly) Options. As with all UDP client software
on any operating system, when several independent PCP clients exist
on the same host, each uses a distinct source port number to
disambiguate their requests and replies. The PCP client's source
port SHOULD be randomly generated [RFC6056].
The PCP client MUST include the source IP address of the PCP message
in the PCP request. This is typically its own IP address; see
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
Section 16.4 for how this can be coded. This is used to detect an
unexpected NAT on the path between the PCP client and the PCP-
controlled NAT or firewall device, to avoid wasting state on the PCP-
controlled NAT creating pointless non-functional mappings. When such
an intervening non-PCP-aware inner NAT is detected, mappings must
first be created by some other means in the inner NAT, before
mappings can be usefully created in the outer PCP-controlled NAT.
Having created mappings in the inner NAT by some other means, the PCP
client should then use the inner NAT's External Address as the Client
IP Address, to signal to the outer PCP-controlled NAT that the client
is aware of the inner NAT, and has taken steps to create mappings in
it by some other means, so that mappings created in the outer NAT
will not be a pointless waste of state.
8.1.1. PCP Client Retransmission
PCP clients are responsible for reliable delivery of PCP request
messages. If a PCP client fails to receive an expected response from
a server, the client must retransmit its message. The
retransmissions MUST use the same Mapping Nonce value (see
Section 11.1 and Section 12.1). The client begins the message
exchange by transmitting a message to the server. The message
exchange continues for as long as the client wishes to maintain the
mapping, and terminates when the PCP client is no longer interested
in the PCP transaction (e.g., the application that requested the
mapping is no longer interested in the mapping) or (optionally) when
the message exchange is considered to have failed according to the
retransmission mechanism described below.
The client retransmission behavior is controlled and described by the
following variables:
RT: Retransmission timeout, calculated as described below
IRT: Initial retransmission time, SHOULD be 3 seconds
MRC: Maximum retransmission count, SHOULD be 0 (0 indicates no
maximum)
MRT: Maximum retransmission time, SHOULD be 1024 seconds
MRD: Maximum retransmission duration, SHOULD be 0 (0 indicates no
maximum)
RAND: Randomization factor, calculated as described below
With each message transmission or retransmission, the client sets RT
according to the rules given below. If RT expires before a response
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
is received, the client recomputes RT and retransmits the request.
Each of the computations of a new RT include a new randomization
factor (RAND), which is a random number chosen with a uniform
distribution between -0.1 and +0.1. The randomization factor is
included to minimize synchronization of messages transmitted by PCP
clients. The algorithm for choosing a random number does not need to
be cryptographically sound. The algorithm SHOULD produce a different
sequence of random numbers from each invocation of the PCP client.
The RT value is initialized based on IRT:
RT = (1 + RAND) * IRT
RT for each subsequent message transmission is based on the previous
value of RT, subject to the upper bound on the value of RT specified
by MRT. If MRT has a value of 0, there is no upper limit on the
value of RT, and MRT is treated as "infinity":
RT = (1 + RAND) * MIN (2 * RTprev, MRT)
MRC specifies an upper bound on the number of times a client may
retransmit a message. Unless MRC is zero, the message exchange fails
once the client has transmitted the message MRC times.
MRD specifies an upper bound on the length of time a client may
retransmit a message. Unless MRD is zero, the message exchange fails
once MRD seconds have elapsed since the client first transmitted the
message.
If both MRC and MRD are non-zero, the message exchange fails whenever
either of the conditions specified in the previous two paragraphs are
met. If both MRC and MRD are zero, the client continues to transmit
the message until it receives a response, or the client no longer
wants a mapping.
Once a PCP client has successfully received a response from a PCP
server on that interface, it resets RT to a value randomly selected
in the range 1/2 to 5/8 of the mapping lifetime, as described in
Section 11.2.1, and sends subsequent PCP requests for that mapping to
that same server.
Note: If the server's state changes between retranmissions and the
server's response is delayed or lost, the state in the PCP client
and server may not be synchronized. This is not unique to PCP,
but also occurs with other network protocols (e.g., TCP). In the
unlikely event that such de-synchronization occurs, PCP heals
itself after Lifetime seconds.
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
8.2. General PCP Server: Processing a Request
This section details operation specific to a PCP server. Processing
SHOULD be performed in the order of the following paragraphs.
A PCP server MUST only accept normal (non-THIRD_PARTY) PCP requests
from a client on the same interface it would normally receive packets
from that client, and MUST silently ignore PCP requests arriving on
any other interface. For example, a residential NAT gateway accepts
PCP requests only when they arrive on its (LAN) interface connecting
to the internal network, and silently ignores any PCP requests
arriving on its external (WAN) interface. A PCP server which
supports THIRD_PARTY requests MAY be configured to accept THIRD_PARTY
requests on other configured interfaces (see Section 13.1).
Upon receiving a request, the PCP server parses and validates it. A
valid request contains a valid PCP common header, one valid PCP
Opcode, and zero or more Options (which the server might or might not
comprehend). If an error is encountered during processing, the
server generates an error response which is sent back to the PCP
client. Processing an Opcode and the Options are specific to each
Opcode.
Error responses have the same packet layout as success responses,
with certain fields from the request copied into the response, and
other fields assigned by the PCP server set as indicated in Figure 3.
Copying request fields into the response is important because this is
what enables a client to identify to which request a given response
pertains. For Opcodes that are understood by the PCP server, it
follows the requirements of that Opcode to copy the appropriate
fields. For Opcodes that are not understood by the PCP server, it
simply generates the UNSUPP_OPCODE response and copies fields from
the PCP header and copies the rest of the PCP payload as-is (without
attempting to interpret it).
All responses (both error and success) contain the same Opcode as the
request, but with the "R" bit set.
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
Any error response has a nonzero Result Code, and is created by:
o Copying the entire UDP payload, or 1100 octets, whichever is less,
and zero-padding the response to a multiple of 4 octets if
necessary
o Setting the R bit
o Setting the Result Code
o Setting the Lifetime, Epoch Time and Reserved fields
o Updating other fields in the response, as indicated by 'set by the
server' in the PCP response field description.
A success response has a zero Result Code, and is created by:
o Copying the first four octets of request packet header
o Setting the R bit
o Setting the Result Code to zero
o Setting the Lifetime, Epoch Time and Reserved fields
o Possibly setting opcode-specific response data if appropriate
o Adding any processed options to the response message
If the received PCP request message is less than two octets long it
is silently dropped.
If the R bit is set the message is silently dropped.
If the first octet (version) is a version that is not supported, a
response is generated with the UNSUPP_VERSION result code, and the
other steps detailed in Section 9 are followed.
Otherwise, if the version is supported but the received message is
shorter than 24 octets, the message is silently dropped.
If the server is overloaded by requests (from a particular client or
from all clients), it MAY simply silently discard requests, as the
requests will be retried by PCP clients, or it MAY generate the
NO_RESOURCES error response.
If the length of the message exceeds 1100 octets, is not a multiple
of 4 octets, or is too short for the opcode in question, it is
invalid and a MALFORMED_REQUEST response is generated, and the
response message is truncated to 1100 octets.
The PCP server compares the source IP address (from the received IP
header) with the field PCP Client IP Address. If they do not match,
the error ADDRESS_MISMATCH MUST be returned. This is done to detect
and prevent accidental use of PCP where a non-PCP-aware NAT exists
between the PCP client and PCP server. If the PCP client wants such
a mapping it needs to ensure the PCP field matches its apparent IP
address from the perspective of the PCP server.
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
8.3. General PCP Client: Processing a Response
The PCP client receives the response and verifies that the source IP
address and port belong to the PCP server of a previously-sent PCP
request. If not, the response is silently dropped.
If the received PCP response message is less than four octets long it
is silently dropped.
If the R bit is clear the message is silently dropped.
If the error code is UNSUPP_VERSION processing continues as described
in Section 9.
The PCP client then validates that the Opcode matches a previous PCP
request. Responses shorter than 24 octets, longer than 1100 octets,
or not a multiple of 4 octets are invalid and ignored, likely causing
the request to be re-transmitted. The response is further matched by
comparing fields in the response Opcode-specific data to fields in
the request Opcode-specific data, as described by the processing for
that Opcode.
After these matches are successful, the PCP client checks the Epoch
Time field to determine if it needs to restore its state to the PCP
server (see Section 8.5). A PCP client SHOULD be prepared to receive
multiple responses from the PCP Server at any time after a single
request is sent. This allows the PCP server to inform the client of
mapping changes such as an update or deletion. For example, a PCP
Server might send a SUCCESS response and, after a configuration
change on the PCP Server, later send a NOT_AUTHORIZED response. A
PCP client MUST be prepared to receive responses for requests it
never sent (which could have been sent by a previous PCP instance on
this same host, or by a previous host that used the same client IP
address, or by a malicious attacker) by simply ignoring those
unexpected messages.
If the error ADDRESS_MISMATCH is received, it indicates the presence
of a NAT between the PCP client and PCP server. Procedures to
resolve this problem are beyond the scope of this document.
For both success and error responses a Lifetime value is returned.
The Lifetime indicates how long this request is considered valid by
the server. The PCP client SHOULD impose an upper limit on this
returned value (to protect against absurdly large values, e.g., 5
years), detailed in Section 15.
If the result code is 0 (SUCCESS), the request succeeded.
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
If the result code is not 0, the request failed, and the PCP client
SHOULD NOT resend the same request for the indicated Lifetime of the
error (as limited by the sanity checking detailed in Section 15).
If the PCP client has discovered a new PCP server (e.g., connected to
a new network), the PCP client MAY immediately begin communicating
with this PCP server, without regard to hold times from communicating
with a previous PCP server.
8.4. Multi-Interface Issues
Hosts that desire a PCP mapping might be multi-interfaced (i.e., own
several logical/physical interfaces). Indeed, a host can be
configured with several IPv4 addresses (e.g., Wi-Fi and Ethernet) or
dual-stacked. These IP addresses may have distinct reachability
scopes (e.g., if IPv6 they might have global reachability scope as
for Global Unicast Address (GUA, [RFC3587]) or limited scope as for
Unique Local Address (ULA) [RFC4193]).
IPv6 addresses with global reachability (e.g., GUA) SHOULD be used as
the source address when generating a PCP request. IPv6 addresses
without global reachability (e.g., ULA [RFC4193]), SHOULD NOT be used
as the source interface when generating a PCP request. If IPv6
privacy addresses [RFC4941] are used for PCP mappings, a new PCP
request will need to be issued whenever the IPv6 privacy address is
changed. This PCP request SHOULD be sent from the IPv6 privacy
address itself. It is RECOMMENDED that the client delete its
mappings to the previous privacy address after it no longer needs
those old mappings.
Due to the ubiquity of IPv4 NAT, IPv4 addresses with limited scope
(e.g., private addresses [RFC1918]) MAY be used as the source
interface when generating a PCP request.
8.5. Epoch
Every PCP response sent by the PCP server includes an Epoch time
field. This time field increments by one every second. Anomalies in
the received Epoch time value provide a hint to PCP clients that a
PCP server state loss may have occurred. Clients respond to such
state loss hints by promptly renewing their mappings, so as to
quickly restore any lost state at the PCP server.
If the PCP server resets or loses the state of its explicit dynamic
Mappings (that is, those mappings created by PCP requests), due to
reboot, power failure, or any other reason, it MUST reset its Epoch
time to its initial starting value (usually zero) to provide this
hint to PCP clients. After resetting its Epoch time, the PCP server
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
resumes incrementing the Epoch time value by one every second.
Similarly, if the External IP Address(es) of the NAT (controlled by
the PCP server) changes, the Epoch time MUST be reset. A PCP server
MAY maintain one Epoch time value for all PCP clients, or MAY
maintain distinct Epoch time values (per PCP client, per interface,
or based on other criteria); this choice is implementation-dependent.
Whenever a client receives a PCP response, the client validates the
received Epoch time value according to the procedure below, using
integer arithmetic:
o If this is the first PCP response the client has received from
this PCP server, the Epoch time value is treated as necessarily
valid, otherwise
* If the current PCP server Epoch time (curr_server_time) is less
than the previously received PCP server Epoch time
(prev_server_time) by more than one second, then the client
treats the Epoch time as obviously invalid (time should not go
backwards). The server Epoch time apparently going backwards
by *up to* one second is not deemed invalid, so that minor
packet re-ordering on the path from PCP Server to PCP Client
does not trigger a cascade of unnecessary mapping renewals. If
the server Epoch time passes this check, then further
validation checks are performed:
+ The client computes the difference between its
current local time (curr_client_time) and the
time the previous PCP response was received from this PCP
server (prev_client_time):
client_delta = curr_client_time - prev_client_time;
+ The client computes the difference between the
current PCP server Epoch time (curr_server_time) and the
previously received Epoch time (prev_server_time):
server_delta = curr_server_time - prev_server_time;
+ If client_delta+2 < server_delta - server_delta/16
or server_delta+2 < client_delta - client_delta/16
then the client treats the Epoch time value as invalid,
else the client treats the Epoch time value as valid
o The client records the current time values for use in its next
comparison:
prev_client_time = curr_client_time
prev_server_time = curr_server_time
If the PCP client determined that the Epoch time value it received
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
was invalid then it concludes that the PCP server may have lost
state, and promptly renews all its active port mapping leases as
described in Section 16.3.1.
Notes:
o The client clock MUST never go backwards. If curr_client_time is
found to be less than prev_client_time then this is a client bug,
and how the client deals with this client bug is implementation
specific.
o The calculations above are constructed to allow client_delta and
server_delta to be computed as unsigned integer values.
o The "+2" in the calculations above is to accommodate quantization
errors in client and server clocks (up to one second quantization
error each in server and client time intervals).
o The "/16" in the calculations above is to accommodate inaccurate
clocks in low-cost devices. This allows for a total discrepancy
of up to 1/16 (6.25%) to be considered benign, e.g., if one clock
were to run too fast by 3% while the other clock ran too slow by
3% then the client would not consider this difference to be
anomalous or indicative of a restart having occurred. This
tolerance is strict enough to be effective at detecting reboots,
while not being so strict as to generate false alarms.
9. Version Negotiation
A PCP client sends its requests using PCP version number 2. Should
later updates to this document specify different message formats with
a version number greater than 2 it is expected that PCP servers will
still support version 2 in addition to the newer version(s).
However, in the event that a server returns a response with result
code UNSUPP_VERSION, the client MAY log an error message to inform
the user that it is too old to work with this server.
Should later updates to this document specify different message
formats with a version number greater than 2, and backwards
compatibility is desired, this first octet can be used for forward
and backward compatibility.
If future PCP versions greater than 2 are specified, version
negotiation proceeds as follows:
1. The client sends its first request using the highest (i.e.,
presumably 'best') version number it supports.
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
2. If the server supports that version it responds normally.
3. If the server does not support that version it replies giving a
result containing the result code UNSUPP_VERSION, and the closest
version number it does support (if the server supports a range of
versions higher than the client's requested version, the server
returns the lowest of that supported range; if the server
supports a range of versions lower than the client's requested
version, the server returns the highest of that supported range).
4. If the client receives an UNSUPP_VERSION result containing a
version it does support, it records this fact and proceeds to use
this message version for subsequent communication with this PCP
server (until a possible future UNSUPP_VERSION response if the
server is later updated, at which point the version negotiation
process repeats).
5. If the client receives an UNSUPP_VERSION result containing a
version it does not support then the client SHOULD try the next-
lower version supported by the client. The attempt to use the
next-lower version repeats until the client has tried version 2.
If using version 2 fails, the client MAY log an error message to
inform the user that it is too old to work with this server, and
the client SHOULD set a timer to retry its request in 30 minutes
or the returned Lifetime value, whichever is smaller. By
automatically retrying in 30 minutes, the protocol accommodates
an upgrade of the PCP server.
10. Introduction to MAP and PEER Opcodes
There are four uses for the MAP and PEER Opcodes defined in this
document:
o a host operating a server and wanting an incoming connection
(Section 10.1);
o a host operating a client and server on the same port
(Section 10.2);
o a host operating a client and wanting to optimize the application
keepalive traffic (Section 10.3);
o and a host operating a client and wanting to restore lost state in
its NAT (Section 10.4).
These are discussed in the following sections, and a (non-normative)
state diagram is provided in Section 16.5.
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
When operating a server (Section 10.1 and Section 10.2) the PCP
client knows if it wants an IPv4 listener, IPv6 listener, or both on
the Internet. The PCP client also knows if it has an IPv4 address or
IPv6 address configured on one of its interfaces. It takes the union
of this knowledge to decide to which of its PCP servers to send the
request (e.g., an IPv4 address or an IPv6 address), and if to send
one or two MAP requests for each of its interfaces (e.g., if the PCP
client has only an IPv4 address but wants both IPv6 and IPv4
listeners, it sends a MAP request containing the all-zeros IPv6
address in the Suggested External Address field, and sends a second
MAP request containing the all-zeros IPv4 address in the Suggested
External Address field. If the PCP client has both an IPv4 and IPv6
address, and only wants an IPv4 listener, it sends one MAP request
from its IPv4 address (if the PCP server supports NAT44 or IPv4
firewall) or one MAP request from its IPv6 address (if the PCP server
supports NAT64). The PCP client can simply request the desired
mapping to determine if the PCP server supports the desired mapping.
Applications that embed IP addresses in payloads (e.g., FTP, SIP)
will find it beneficial to avoid address family translation, if
possible.
The MAP and PEER requests include a Suggested External IP Address
field. Some PCP-controlled devices, especially CGN but also multi-
homed NPTv6 networks, have a pool of public-facing IP addresses. PCP
allows the client to indicate if it wants a mapping assigned on a
specific address of that pool or any address of that pool. Some
applications will break if mappings are created on different IP
addresses (e.g., active mode FTP), so applications should carefully
consider the implications of using this capability. Static mappings
for that Internal Address (e.g., those created by a command-line
interface on the PCP server or PCP-controlled device) may exist to a
certain External Address, and if the Suggested External IP Address is
the all-zeros address, PCP SHOULD assign its mappings to the same
External Address, as this can also help applications using a mix of
both static mappings and PCP-created mappings. If, on the other
hand, the Suggested External IP Address contains a non-zero IP
address the PCP Server SHOULD create a mapping to that external
address, even if there are other mappings from that same Internal
Address to a different External Address. Once an Internal Address
has no implicit dynamic mappings and no explicit dynamic mappings in
the PCP-controlled device, a subsequent implicit or explicit mapping
for that Internal Address MAY be assigned to a different External
Address. Generally, this re-assignment would occur when a CGN device
is load balancing newly-seen Internal Addresses to its public pool of
External Addresses.
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
The following table summarizes how various common PCP deployments use
IPv6 and IPv4 addresses.
The 'internal' address is implicitly the same as the source IP
address of the PCP request, except when the THIRD_PARTY option is
used.
The 'external' address is the Suggested External Address field of the
MAP or PEER request, and is address family is usually the same as the
'internal' address family, except when technologies like NAT64 are
used.
The 'remote peer' address is the Remote Peer IP Address of the PEER
request or the FILTER option of the MAP request, and is always the
same address family as the 'internal' address, even when NAT64 is
used.
In NAT64, the IPv6 PCP client is not necessarily aware of the NAT64
or aware of the actual IPv4 address of the remote peer, so it
expresses the IPv6 address from its perspective, as shown in the
table.
internal external PCP remote peer actual remote peer
-------- ------- --------------- ------------------
IPv4 firewall IPv4 IPv4 IPv4 IPv4
IPv6 firewall IPv6 IPv6 IPv6 IPv6
NAT44 IPv4 IPv4 IPv4 IPv4
NAT46 IPv4 IPv6 IPv4 IPv6
NAT64 IPv6 IPv4 IPv6 IPv4
NPTv6 IPv6 IPv6 IPv6 IPv6
Figure 5: Address Families with MAP and PEER
10.1. For Operating a Server
A host operating a server (e.g., a web server) listens for traffic on
a port, but the server never initiates traffic from that port. For
this to work across a NAT or a firewall, the host needs to (a) create
a mapping from a public IP address, protocol, and port to itself as
described in Section 11, (b) publish that public IP address,
protocol, and port via some sort of rendezvous server (e.g., DNS, a
SIP message, a proprietary protocol), and (c) ensure that any other
non-PCP-speaking packet filtering middleboxes on the path (e.g.,
host-based firewall, network-based firewall, or other NATs) will also
allow the incoming traffic. Publishing the public IP address and
port is out of scope of this specification. To accomplish (a), the
host follows the procedures described in this section.
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
As normal, the application needs to begin listening on a port. Then,
the application constructs a PCP message with the MAP Opcode, with
the external address set to the appropriate all-zeroes address,
depending on whether it wants a public IPv4 or IPv6 address.
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
The following pseudo-code shows how PCP can be reliably used to
operate a server:
/* start listening on the local server port */
int s = socket(...);
bind(s, ...);
listen(s, ...);
getsockname(s, &internal_sockaddr, ...);
bzero(&external_sockaddr, sizeof(external_sockaddr));
while (1)
{
/* Note: The "time_to_send_pcp_request()" check below includes:
* 1. Sending the first request
* 2. Retransmitting requests due to packet loss
* 3. Resending a request due to impending lease expiration
* 4. Resending a request due to server state loss
* The PCP packet sent is identical in all four cases; from
* the PCP server's point of view they are the same operation.
* The Suggested External Address and Port may be updated
* repeatedly during the lifetime of the mapping.
* Other fields in the packet generally remain unchanged.
*/
if (time_to_send_pcp_request())
pcp_send_map_request(internal_sockaddr.sin_port,
internal_sockaddr.sin_addr,
&external_sockaddr, /* will be zero the first time */
requested_lifetime, &assigned_lifetime);
if (pcp_response_received())
update_rendezvous_server("Client Ident", external_sockaddr);
if (received_incoming_connection_or_packet())
process_it(s);
if (other_work_to_do())
do_it();
/* ... */
block_until_we_need_to_do_something_else();
}
Figure 6: Pseudo-code for using PCP to operate a server
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
10.2. For Operating a Symmetric Client/Server
A host operating a client and server on the same port (e.g.,
Symmetric RTP [RFC4961] or SIP Symmetric Response Routing (rport)
[RFC3581]) first establishes a local listener, (usually) sends the
local and public IP addresses, protocol, and ports to a rendezvous
service (which is out of scope of this document), and initiates an
outbound connection from that same source address and same port. To
accomplish this, the application uses the procedure described in this
section.
An application that is using the same port for outgoing connections
as well as incoming connections MUST first signal its operation of a
server using the PCP MAP Opcode, as described in Section 11, and
receive a positive PCP response before it sends any packets from that
port.
Discussion: In general, a PCP client doesn't know in advance if it
is behind a NAT or firewall. On detecting the host has connected
to a new network, the PCP client can attempt to request a mapping
using PCP, and if that succeeds then the client knows it has
successfully created a mapping. If after multiple retries it has
received no PCP response, then either the client is *not* behind a
NAT or firewall and has unfettered connectivity, or the client
*is* behind a NAT or firewall which doesn't support PCP (and the
client may still have working connectivity by virtue of static
mappings previously created manually by the user). Retransmitting
PCP requests multiple times before giving up and assuming
unfettered connectivity adds delay in that case. Initiating
outbound TCP connections immediately without waiting for PCP
avoids this delay, and will work if the NAT has endpoint-
independent mapping EIM behavior, but may fail if the NAT has
endpoint-dependent mapping EDM behavior. Waiting enough time to
allow an explicit PCP MAP Mapping to be created (if possible)
first ensures that the same External Port will then be used for
all subsequent implicit dynamic mappings (e.g., TCP SYNs) sent
from the specified Internal Address, Protocol, and Port. PCP
supports both EIM and EDM NATs, so clients need to assume they may
be dealing with an EDM NAT. In this case, the client will
experience more reliable connectivity if it attempts explicit PCP
MAP requests first, before initiating any outbound TCP connections
from that Internal Address and Port. See also Section 16.1.
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
The following pseudo-code shows how PCP can be used to operate a
symmetric client and server:
/* start listening on the local server port */
int s = socket(...);
bind(s, ...);
listen(s, ...);
getsockname(s, &internal_sockaddr, ...);
bzero(&external_sockaddr, sizeof(external_sockaddr));
while (1)
{
/* Note: The "time_to_send_pcp_request()" check below includes:
* 1. Sending the first request
* 2. Retransmitting requests due to packet loss
* 3. Resending a request due to impending lease expiration
* 4. Resending a request due to server state loss
*/
if (time_to_send_pcp_request())
pcp_send_map_request(internal_sockaddr.sin_port,
internal_sockaddr.sin_addr,
&external_sockaddr, /* will be zero the first time */
requested_lifetime, &assigned_lifetime);
if (pcp_response_received())
update_rendezvous_server("Client Ident", external_sockaddr);
if (received_incoming_connection_or_packet())
process_it(s);
if (need_to_make_outgoing_connection())
make_outgoing_connection(s, ...);
if (data_to_send())
send_it(s);
if (other_work_to_do())
do_it();
/* ... */
block_until_we_need_to_do_something_else();
}
Figure 7: Pseudo-code for using PCP to operate a symmetric client/
server
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
10.3. For Reducing NAT or Firewall Keepalive Messages
A host operating a client (e.g., XMPP client, SIP client) sends from
a port, and may receive responses, but never accepts incoming
connections from other Remote Peers on this port. It wants to ensure
the flow to its Remote Peer is not terminated (due to inactivity) by
an on-path NAT or firewall. To accomplish this, the application uses
the procedure described in this section.
Middleboxes such as NATs or firewalls need to see occasional traffic
or will terminate their session state, causing application failures.
To avoid this, many applications routinely generate keepalive traffic
for the primary (or sole) purpose of maintaining state with such
middleboxes. Applications can reduce such application keepalive
traffic by using PCP.
Note: For reasons beyond NAT, an application may find it useful to
perform application-level keepalives, such as to detect a broken
path between the client and server, keep state alive on the Remote
Peer, or detect a powered-down client. These keepalives are not
related to maintaining middlebox state, and PCP cannot do anything
useful to reduce those keepalives.
To use PCP for this function, the application first connects to its
server, as normal. Afterwards, it issues a PCP request with the PEER
Opcode as described in Section 12.
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
The following pseudo-code shows how PCP can be reliably used with a
dynamic socket, for the purposes of reducing application keepalive
messages:
int s = socket(...);
connect(s, &remote_peer, ...);
getsockname(s, &internal_sockaddr, ...);
bzero(&external_sockaddr, sizeof(external_sockaddr));
while (1)
{
/* Note: The "time_to_send_pcp_request()" check below includes:
* 1. Sending the first request
* 2. Retransmitting requests due to packet loss
* 3. Resending a request due to impending lease expiration
* 4. Resending a request due to server state loss
*/
if (time_to_send_pcp_request())
pcp_send_peer_request(internal_sockaddr.sin_port,
internal_sockaddr.sin_addr,
&external_sockaddr, /* will be zero the first time */
remote_peer, requested_lifetime, &assigned_lifetime);
if (data_to_send())
send_it(s);
if (other_work_to_do())
do_it();
/* ... */
block_until_we_need_to_do_something_else();
}
Figure 8: Pseudo-code using PCP with a dynamic socket
10.4. For Restoring Lost Implicit TCP Dynamic Mapping State
After a NAT loses state (e.g., because of a crash or power failure),
it is useful for clients to re-establish TCP mappings on the NAT.
This allows servers on the Internet to see traffic from the same IP
address and port, so that sessions can be resumed exactly where they
were left off. This can be useful for long-lived connections (e.g.,
instant messaging) or for connections transferring a lot of data
(e.g., FTP). This can be accomplished by first establishing a TCP
connection normally and then sending a PEER request/response and
remembering the External Address and External Port. Later, when the
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
NAT has lost state, the client can send a PEER request with the
Suggested External Port and Suggested External Address remembered
from the previous session, which will create a mapping in the NAT
that functions exactly as an implicit dynamic mapping. The client
then resumes sending TCP data to the server.
Note: This procedure works well for TCP, provided the NAT creates
a new implicit dynamic outbound mapping only for TCP segments with
the SYN bit set (i.e., the newly-booted NAT drops the re-
transmitted data segments from the client because the NAT does not
have an active mapping for those segments), and if the server is
not sending data that elicits a RST from the NAT. This is not the
case for UDP, because a new UDP mapping will be created (probably
on a different port) as soon as UDP traffic is seen by the NAT.
11. MAP Opcode
This section defines an Opcode which controls forwarding from a NAT
(or firewall) to an Internal Host.
MAP: Create an explicit dynamic mapping between an Internal
Address + Port and an External Address + Port.
PCP Servers SHOULD provide a configuration option to allow
administrators to disable MAP support if they wish.
Mappings created by PCP MAP requests are, by definition, Endpoint
Independent Mappings (EIM) with Endpoint Independent Filtering (EIF)
(unless the FILTER Option is used), even on a NAT that usually
creates Endpoint Dependent Mappings (EDM) or Endpoint Dependent
Filtering (EDF) for outgoing connections, since the purpose of an
(unfiltered) MAP mapping is to receive inbound traffic from any
remote endpoint, not from only one specific remote endpoint.
Note also that all NAT mappings (created by PCP or otherwise) are by
necessity bidirectional and symmetric. For any packet going in one
direction (in or out) that is translated by the NAT, a reply going in
the opposite direction needs to have the corresponding opposite
translation done so that the reply arrives at the right endpoint.
This means that if a client creates a MAP mapping, and then later
sends an outgoing packet using the mapping's Internal Address,
Protocol and Port, the NAT should translate that packet's Internal
Address and Port to the mapping's External Address and Port, so that
replies addressed to the External Address and Port are correctly
translated back to the mapping's Internal Address and Port.
On Operating Systems that allow multiple listening servers to bind to
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
the same internal address, protocol and port, servers MUST ensure
that they have exclusive use of that internal address, protocol and
port (e.g., by binding the port using INADDR_ANY, or using
SO_EXCLUSIVEADDRUSE or similar) before sending their PCP MAP request,
to ensure that no other PCP clients on the same machine are also
listening on the same internal protocol and internal port.
As a side-effect of creating a mapping, ICMP messages associated with
the mapping MUST be forwarded (and also translated, if appropriate)
for the duration of the mapping's lifetime. This is done to ensure
that ICMP messages can still be used by hosts, without application
programmers or PCP client implementations needing to use PCP
separately to create ICMP mappings for those flows.
The operation of the MAP Opcode is described in this section.
11.1. MAP Operation Packet Formats
The MAP Opcode has a similar packet layout for both requests and
responses. If the Assigned External IP address and Port in the PCP
response always match the Internal IP Address and Port from the PCP
request, then the functionality is purely a firewall; otherwise it
pertains to a network address translator which might also perform
firewall-like functions.
The following diagram shows the format of the Opcode-specific
information in a request for the MAP Opcode.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Mapping Nonce (96 bits) |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Protocol | Reserved (24 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Internal Port | Suggested External Port |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Suggested External IP Address (128 bits) |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 9: MAP Opcode Request
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
These fields are described below:
Requested lifetime (in common header): Requested lifetime of this
mapping, in seconds. The value 0 indicates "delete".
Mapping Nonce: Random value chosen by the PCP client. See
Section 11.2. Zero is a legal value (but unlikely, occurring in
roughly one in 2^96 requests).
Protocol: Upper-layer protocol associated with this Opcode. Values
are taken from the IANA protocol registry [proto_numbers]. For
example, this field contains 6 (TCP) if the Opcode is intended to
create a TCP mapping. The value 0 has a special meaning for 'all
protocols'.
Reserved: 24 reserved bits, MUST be sent as 0 and MUST be ignored
when received.
Internal Port: Internal port for the mapping. The value 0 indicates
'all ports', and is legal when the lifetime is zero (a delete
request), if the Protocol does not use 16-bit port numbers, or the
client is requesting 'all ports'. If Protocol is zero (meaning
'all protocols'), then Internal Port MUST be zero on transmission
and MUST be ignored on reception.
Suggested External Port: Suggested external port for the mapping.
This is useful for refreshing a mapping, especially after the PCP
server loses state. If the PCP client does not know the external
port, or does not have a preference, it MUST use 0.
Suggested External IP Address: Suggested external IPv4 or IPv6
address. This is useful for refreshing a mapping, especially
after the PCP server loses state. If the PCP client does not know
the external address, or does not have a preference, it MUST use
the address-family-specific all-zeroes address (see Section 5).
The internal address for the request is the source IP address of the
PCP request message itself, unless the THIRD_PARTY Option is used.
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
The following diagram shows the format of Opcode-specific information
in a response packet for the MAP Opcode:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Mapping Nonce (96 bits) |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Protocol | Reserved (24 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Internal Port | Assigned External Port |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Assigned External IP Address (128 bits) |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 10: MAP Opcode Response
These fields are described below:
Lifetime (in common header): On an error response, this indicates
how long clients should assume they'll get the same error response
from the PCP server if they repeat the same request. On a success
response, this indicates the lifetime for this mapping, in
seconds.
Mapping Nonce: Copied from the request.
Protocol: Copied from the request.
Reserved: 24 reserved bits, MUST be sent as 0 and MUST be ignored
when received.
Internal Port: Copied from the request.
Assigned External Port: On a success response, this is the assigned
external port for the mapping. On an error response, the
Suggested External Port is copied from the request.
Assigned External IP Address: On a success response, this is the
assigned external IPv4 or IPv6 address for the mapping. An IPv4
address is encoded using IPv4-mapped IPv6 address. On an error
response, the Suggested External IP Address is copied from the
request.
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
11.2. Generating a MAP Request
This section describes the operation of a PCP client when sending
requests with the MAP Opcode.
The request MAY contain values in the Suggested External Port and
Suggested External IP Address fields. This allows the PCP client to
attempt to rebuild lost state on the PCP server, which improves the
chances of existing connections surviving, and helps the PCP client
avoid having to change information maintained at its rendezvous
server. Of course, due to other activity on the network (e.g., by
other users or network renumbering), the PCP server may not be able
to grant the suggested External IP Address, Protocol, and Port, and
in that case it will assign a different External IP Address and Port.
A PCP client MUST be written assuming that it may *never* be assigned
the external port it suggests. In the case of recreating state after
a NAT gateway crash, the Suggested External Port, being one that was
previously allocated to this client, is likely to be available for
this client to continue using. In all other cases, the client MUST
assume that it is unlikely that its Suggested External Port will be
granted. For example, when many subscribers are sharing a Carrier-
Grade NAT, popular ports such as 80, 443 and 8080 are likely to be in
high demand. At most one client can have each of those popular ports
for each External IP Address, and all the other clients will be
assigned other, dynamically allocated, External Ports. Indeed, some
ISPs may, by policy, choose not to grant those External Ports to
*anyone*, so that none of their clients are *ever* assigned External
Ports 80, 443 or 8080.
If the Protocol does not use 16-bit port numbers (e.g., RSVP, IP
protocol number 46), the port number MUST be zero. This will cause
all traffic matching that protocol to be mapped.
If the client wants all protocols mapped it uses Protocol 0 (zero)
and Internal Port 0 (zero).
The Mapping Nonce value is randomly chosen by the PCP client,
following accepted practices for generating unguessable random
numbers [RFC4086], and is used as part of the validation of PCP
responses (see below) by the PCP client, and validation for mapping
refreshes by the PCP server. The client MUST use a different Mapping
Nonce for each PCP server it communicates with, and it is RECOMMENDED
to choose a new random Mapping Nonce whenever the PCP client is
initialized. The client MAY use a different Mapping Nonce for every
mapping.
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
11.2.1. Renewing a Mapping
An existing mapping can have its lifetime extended by the PCP client.
To do this, the PCP client sends a new MAP request indicating the
internal port. The PCP MAP request SHOULD also include the currently
assigned external IP address and port in the Suggested External IP
address and Suggested External Port fields, so if the PCP server has
lost state it can recreate the lost mapping with the same parameters.
The PCP client SHOULD renew the mapping before its expiry time,
otherwise it will be removed by the PCP server (see Section 15). To
reduce the risk of inadvertent synchronization of renewal requests, a
random jitter component should be included. It is RECOMMENDED that
PCP clients send a single renewal request packet at a time chosen
with uniform random distribution in the range 1/2 to 5/8 of
expiration time. If no SUCCESS response is received, then the next
renewal request should be sent 3/4 to 3/4 + 1/16 to expiration, and
then another 7/8 to 7/8 + 1/32 to expiration, and so on, subject to
the constraint that renewal requests MUST NOT be sent less than four
seconds apart (a PCP client MUST NOT send a flood of ever-closer-
together requests in the last few seconds before a mapping expires).
11.3. Processing a MAP Request
This section describes the operation of a PCP server when processing
a request with the MAP Opcode. Processing SHOULD be performed in the
order of the following paragraphs.
The Protocol, Internal Port, and Mapping Nonce fields from the MAP
request are copied into the MAP response. If present and processed
by the PCP server the THIRD_PARTY Option is also copied into the MAP
response.
If the Requested Lifetime is non-zero then:
o If both the protocol and internal port are non-zero, it indicates
a request to create a mapping or extend the lifetime of an
existing mapping. If the PCP server or PCP-controlled device does
not support the Protocol, the UNSUPP_PROTOCOL error MUST be
returned.
o If the protocol is non-zero and the internal port is zero, it
indicates a request to create or extend a mapping for all incoming
traffic for that entire Protocol. If this request cannot be
fulfilled in its entirety, the UNSUPP_PROTOCOL error MUST be
returned.
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
o If both the protocol and internal port are zero, it indicates a
request to create or extend a mapping for all incoming traffic for
all protocols (commonly called a "DMZ host"). If this request
cannot be fulfilled in its entirety, the UNSUPP_PROTOCOL error
MUST be returned.
o If the protocol is zero and the internal port is non-zero, then
the request is invalid and the PCP Server MUST return a
MALFORMED_REQUEST error to the client.
If the requested lifetime is zero, it indicates a request to delete
an existing mapping.
Further processing of the lifetime is described in Section 15.
If operating in the Simple Threat Model (Section 18.1), and the
Internal port, Protocol, and Internal Address match an existing
explicit dynamic mapping, but the Mapping Nonce does not match, the
request MUST be rejected with a NOT_AUTHORIZED error with the
Lifetime of the error indicating duration of that existing mapping.
The PCP server only needs to remember one Mapping Nonce value for
each explicit dynamic mapping.
If the Internal port, Protocol, and Internal Address match an
existing static mapping (which will have no nonce) then a PCP reply
is sent giving the External Address and Port of that static mapping,
using the nonce from the PCP request. The server does not record the
nonce.
If an Option with value less than 128 exists (i.e., mandatory to
process) but that Option does not make sense (e.g., the
PREFER_FAILURE Option is included in a request with lifetime=0), the
request is invalid and generates a MALFORMED_OPTION error.
If the PCP-controlled device is stateless (that is, it does not
establish any per-flow state, and simply rewrites the address and/or
port in a purely algorithmic fashion), the PCP server simply returns
an answer indicating the external IP address and port yielded by this
stateless algorithmic translation. This allows the PCP client to
learn its external IP address and port as seen by remote peers.
Examples of stateless translators include stateless NAT64, 1:1 NAT44,
and NPTv6 [RFC6296], all of which modify addresses but not port
numbers.
It is possible that a mapping might already exist for a requested
Internal Address, Protocol, and Port. If so, the PCP server takes
the following actions:
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
1. If the MAP request contains the PREFER_FAILURE Option, but the
Suggested External Address and Port do not match the External
Address and Port of the existing mapping, the PCP server MUST
return CANNOT_PROVIDE_EXTERNAL.
2. If the existing mapping is static (created outside of PCP), the
PCP server MUST return the External Address and Port of the
existing mapping in its response and SHOULD indicate a Lifetime
of 2^32-1 seconds, regardless of the Suggested External Address
and Port in the request.
3. If the existing mapping is explicit dynamic inbound (created by a
previous MAP request), the PCP server MUST return the existing
External Address and Port in its response, regardless of the
Suggested External Address and Port in the request.
Additionally, the PCP server MUST update the lifetime of the
existing mapping, in accordance with section 10.5.
4. If the existing mapping is dynamic outbound (created by outgoing
traffic or a previous PEER request), the PCP server SHOULD create
a new explicit inbound mapping, replicating the ports and
addresses from the outbound mapping (but the outbound mapping
continues to exist, and remains in effect if the explicit inbound
mapping is later deleted).
If no mapping exists for the Internal Address, Protocol, and Port,
and the PCP server is able to create a mapping using the Suggested
External Address and Port, it SHOULD do so. This is beneficial for
re-establishing state lost in the PCP server (e.g., due to a reboot).
There are, however, cases where the PCP server is not able to create
a new mapping using the Suggested External Address and Port:
o The Suggested External Address, Protocol, and Port is already
assigned to another existing explicit or implicit mapping (i.e.,
is already forwarding traffic to some other internal address and
port).
o The Suggested External Address, Protocol, and Port is already used
by the NAT gateway for one of its own services. For example, TCP
port 80 for the NAT gateway's own configuration web pages, or UDP
ports 5350 and 5351, used by PCP itself. A PCP server MUST NOT
create client mappings for External UDP ports 5350 or 5351.
o The Suggested External Address, Protocol, and Port is otherwise
prohibited by the PCP server's policy.
o The Suggested External IP Address, Protocol, or Suggested Port are
invalid or invalid combinations (e.g., External Address 127.0.0.1,
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
::1, a multicast address, or the Suggested Port is not valid for
the Protocol).
o The Suggested External Address does not belong to the NAT gateway.
o The Suggested External Address is not configured to be used as an
external address of the firewall or NAT gateway.
If the PCP server cannot assign the Suggested External Address,
Protocol, and Port, then:
o If the request contained the PREFER_FAILURE Option, then the PCP
server MUST return CANNOT_PROVIDE_EXTERNAL.
o If the request did not contain the PREFER_FAILURE Option, and the
PCP server can assign some other External Address and Port for
that protocol, then the PCP server MUST do so and return the newly
assigned External Address and Port in the response. In no case is
the client penalized for a 'poor' choice of Suggested External
Address and Port. The Suggested External Address and Port may be
used by the server to guide its choice of what External Address
and Port to assign, but in no case do they cause the server to
fail to allocate an External Address and Port where otherwise it
would have succeeded. The presence of a non-zero Suggested
External Address or Port is merely a hint; it never does any harm.
By default, a PCP-controlled device MUST NOT create mappings for a
protocol not indicated in the request. For example, if the request
was for a TCP mapping, a UDP mapping MUST NOT be created.
Mappings typically consume state on the PCP-controlled device, and it
is RECOMMENDED that a per-host and/or per-subscriber limit be
enforced by the PCP server to prevent exhausting the mapping state.
If this limit is exceeded, the result code USER_EX_QUOTA is returned.
If all of the preceding operations were successful (did not generate
an error response), then the requested mapping is created or
refreshed as described in the request and a SUCCESS response is
built.
11.4. Processing a MAP Response
This section describes the operation of the PCP client when it
receives a PCP response for the MAP Opcode.
After performing common PCP response processing, the response is
further matched with a previously-sent MAP request by comparing the
Internal IP Address (the destination IP address of the PCP response,
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 48]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
or other IP address specified via the THIRD_PARTY option), the
Protocol, the Internal Port, and the Mapping Nonce. Other fields are
not compared, because the PCP server sets those fields. The PCP
server will send a Mapping Update (Section 14.2) if the mapping
changes (e.g., due to IP renumbering).
If the result code is NO_RESOURCES and the request was for the
creation or renewal of a mapping, then the PCP client SHOULD NOT send
further requests for any new mappings to that PCP server for the
(limited) value of the Lifetime. If the result code is NO_RESOURCES
and the request was for the deletion of a mapping, then the PCP
client SHOULD NOT send further requests of *any kind* to that PCP
server for the (limited) value of the Lifetime.
On a success response, the PCP client can use the External IP Address
and Port as needed. Typically the PCP client will communicate the
External IP Address and Port to another host on the Internet using an
application-specific rendezvous mechanism such as DNS SRV records.
As long as renewal is desired, the PCP client MUST also set a timer
or otherwise schedule an event to renew the mapping before its
lifetime expires. Renewing a mapping is performed by sending another
MAP request, exactly as described in Section 11.2, except that the
Suggested External Address and Port SHOULD be set to the values
received in the response. From the PCP server's point of view a MAP
request to renew a mapping is identical to a MAP request to create a
new mapping, and is handled identically. Indeed, in the event of PCP
server state loss, a renewal request from a PCP client will appear to
the server to be a request to create a new mapping, with a particular
Suggested External Address and Port, which happens to be what the PCP
server previously assigned. See also Section 16.3.1.
On an error response, the client SHOULD NOT repeat the same request
to the same PCP server within the lifetime returned in the response.
11.5. Address Change Events
A customer premises router might obtain a new External IP address,
for a variety of reasons including a reboot, power outage, DHCP lease
expiry, or other action by the ISP. If this occurs, traffic
forwarded to the host's previous address might be delivered to
another host which now has that address. This affects all mapping
types, whether implicit or explicit. This same problem already
occurs today when a host's IP address is re-assigned, without PCP and
without an ISP-operated CGN. The solution is the same as today: the
problems associated with host renumbering are caused by host
renumbering, and are eliminated if host renumbering is avoided. PCP
defined in this document does not provide machinery to reduce the
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 49]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
host renumbering problem.
When an Internal Host changes its Internal IP address (e.g., by
having a different address assigned by the DHCP server) the NAT (or
firewall) will continue to send traffic to the old IP address.
Typically, the Internal Host will no longer receive traffic sent to
that old IP address. Assuming the Internal Host wants to continue
receiving traffic, it needs to install new mappings for its new IP
address. The suggested external port field will not be fulfilled by
the PCP server, in all likelihood, because it is still being
forwarded to the old IP address. Thus, a mapping is likely to be
assigned a new External Port number and/or External IP Address. Note
that such host renumbering is not expected to happen routinely on a
regular basis for most hosts, since most hosts renew their DHCP
leases before they expire (or re-request the same address after
reboot) and most DHCP servers honor such requests and grant the host
the same address it was previously using before the reboot.
A host might gain or lose interfaces while existing mappings are
active (e.g., Ethernet cable plugged in or removed, joining/leaving a
Wi-Fi network). Because of this, if the PCP client is sending a PCP
request to maintain state in the PCP server, it SHOULD ensure those
PCP requests continue to use the same interface (e.g., when
refreshing mappings). If the PCP client is sending a PCP request to
create new state in the PCP server, it MAY use a different source
interface or different source address.
11.6. Learning the External IP Address Alone
NAT-PMP [I-D.cheshire-nat-pmp] includes a mechanism to allow clients
to learn the External IP Address alone, without also requesting a
port mapping. NAT-PMP was designed for residential NAT gateways,
where such an operation makes sense because the residential NAT
gateway has only one External IP Address. PCP has broader scope, and
also supports Carrier-Grade NATs (CGN) which may have a pool of
External IP Addresses, not just one. A client may not be assigned
any particular External IP Address from that pool until it has at
least one implicit, explicit or static port mapping, and even then
only for as long as that mapping remains valid. Client software that
just wishes to display the user's External IP Address for cosmetic
purposes can achieve that by requesting a short-lived mapping (e.g.,
to the Discard service (TCP/9 or UDP/9) or some other port) and then
displaying the resulting External IP Address. However, once that
mapping expires a subsequent implicit or explicit dynamic mapping
might be mapped to a different external IP address.
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 50]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
12. PEER Opcode
This section defines an Opcode for controlling dynamic mappings.
PEER: Create a new dynamic outbound mapping to a remote peer's IP
address and port, or extend the lifetime of an existing
outbound mapping.
The use of this Opcodes is described in this section.
PCP Servers SHOULD provide a configuration option to allow
administrators to disable PEER support if they wish.
Because a mapping created or managed by PEER behaves almost exactly
like an implicit dynamic mapping created as a side-effect of a packet
(e.g., TCP SYN) sent by the host, mappings created or managed using
PCP PEER requests may be Endpoint Independent Mappings (EIM) or
Endpoint Dependent Mappings (EDM), with Endpoint Independent
Filtering (EIF) or Endpoint Dependent Filtering (EDF), consistent
with the existing behavior of the NAT gateway or firewall in question
for implicit outbound mappings it creates automatically as a result
of observing outgoing traffic from Internal Hosts.
12.1. PEER Operation Packet Formats
The PEER Opcode allows a PCP client to create a new explicit dynamic
outbound mapping (which functions similarly to an outbound mapping
created implicitly when a host sends an outbound TCP SYN) or to
extend the lifetime of an existing outbound mapping.
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 51]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
The following diagram shows the Opcode layout for the PEER Opcode.
This packet format is aligned with the response packet format:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Mapping Nonce (96 bits) |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Protocol | Reserved (24 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Internal Port | Suggested External Port |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Suggested External IP Address (128 bits) |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote Peer Port | Reserved (16 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Remote Peer IP Address (128 bits) |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 11: PEER Opcode Request
These fields are described below:
Requested Lifetime (in common header): Requested lifetime of this
mapping, in seconds. Note that it is not possible to reduce the
lifetime of a mapping (or delete it, with requested lifetime=0)
using PEER.
Mapping Nonce: Random value chosen by the PCP client. See
Section 12.2. Zero is a legal value (but unlikely, occurring in
roughly one in 2^96 requests).
Protocol: Upper-layer protocol associated with this Opcode. Values
are taken from the IANA protocol registry [proto_numbers]. For
example, this field contains 6 (TCP) if the Opcode is describing a
TCP mapping. Protocol MUST NOT be zero.
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 52]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
Reserved: 24 reserved bits, MUST be set to 0 on transmission and
MUST be ignored on reception.
Internal Port: Internal port for the mapping. Internal Port MUST
NOT be zero.
Suggested External Port: Suggested external port for the mapping.
If the PCP client does not know the external port, or does not
have a preference, it MUST use 0.
Suggested External IP Address: Suggested External IP Address for the
mapping. If the PCP client does not know the external address, or
does not have a preference, it MUST use the address-family-
specific all-zeroes address (see Section 5).
Remote Peer Port: Remote peer's port for the mapping. Remote Peer
Port MUST NOT be zero.
Reserved: 16 reserved bits, MUST be set to 0 on transmission and
MUST be ignored on reception.
Remote Peer IP Address: Remote peer's IP address. This is from the
perspective of the PCP client, so that the PCP client does not
need to concern itself with NAT64 or NAT46 (which both cause the
client's idea of the remote peer's IP address to differ from the
remote peer's actual IP address). This field allows the PCP
client and PCP server to disambiguate multiple connections from
the same port on the Internal Host to different servers. An IPv6
address is represented directly, and an IPv4 address is
represented using the IPv4-mapped address syntax (Section 5).
When attempting to re-create a lost mapping, the Suggested External
IP Address and Port are set to the External IP Address and Port
fields received in a previous PEER response from the PCP server. On
an initial PEER request, the External IP Address and Port are set to
zero.
Note that semantics similar to the PREFER_FAILURE option are
automatically implied by PEER requests. If the Suggested External IP
Address or Suggested External Port fields are non-zero, and the PCP
server is unable to honor the Suggested External IP Address,
Protocol, or Port, then the PCP server MUST return a
CANNOT_PROVIDE_EXTERNAL error response. The PREFER_FAILURE Option is
neither required nor allowed in PEER requests, and if PCP server
receives a PEER request containing the PREFER_FAILURE Option it MUST
return a MALFORMED_REQUEST error response.
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 53]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
The following diagram shows the Opcode response for the PEER Opcode:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Mapping Nonce (96 bits) |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Protocol | Reserved (24 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Internal Port | Assigned External Port |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Assigned External IP Address (128 bits) |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote Peer Port | Reserved (16 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Remote Peer IP Address (128 bits) |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 12: PEER Opcode Response
Lifetime (in common header): On a success response, this indicates
the lifetime for this mapping, in seconds. On an error response,
this indicates how long clients should assume they'll get the same
error response from the PCP server if they repeat the same
request.
Mapping Nonce: Copied from the request.
Protocol: Copied from the request.
Reserved: 24 reserved bits, MUST be set to 0 on transmission, MUST
be ignored on reception.
Internal Port: Copied from request.
Assigned External Port: On a success response, this is the assigned
external port for the mapping. On an error response, the
Suggested External Port is copied from the request.
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 54]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
Assigned External IP Address: On a success response, this is the
assigned external IPv4 or IPv6 address for the mapping. On an
error response, the Suggested External IP Address is copied from
the request.
Remote Peer port: Copied from request.
Reserved: 16 reserved bits, MUST be set to 0 on transmission, MUST
be ignored on reception.
Remote Peer IP Address: Copied from the request.
12.2. Generating a PEER Request
This section describes the operation of a client when generating a
message with the PEER Opcode.
The PEER Opcode MAY be sent before or after establishing bi-
directional communication with the remote peer.
If sent before, this is considered a PEER-created mapping which
creates a new dynamic outbound mapping in the PCP-controlled device.
This is useful for restoring a mapping after a NAT has lost its
mapping state (e.g., due to a crash).
If sent after, this allows the PCP client to learn the IP address,
port, and lifetime of the assigned External Address and Port for the
existing implicit dynamic outbound mapping, and potentially to extend
this lifetime (for the purpose described in Section 10.3).
The Mapping Nonce value is randomly chosen by the PCP client,
following accepted practices for generating unguessable random
numbers [RFC4086], and is used as part of the validation of PCP
responses (see below) by the PCP client, and validation for mapping
refreshes by the PCP server. The client MUST use a different Mapping
Nonce for each PCP server it communicates with, and it is RECOMMENDED
to choose a new random Mapping Nonce whenever the PCP client is
initialized. The client MAY use a different Mapping Nonce for every
mapping.
The PEER Opcode contains a Remote Peer Address field, which is always
from the perspective of the PCP client. Note that when the PCP-
controlled device is performing address family translation (NAT46 or
NAT64), the remote peer address from the perspective of the PCP
client is different from the remote peer address on the other side of
the address family translation device.
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 55]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
12.3. Processing a PEER Request
This section describes the operation of a server when receiving a
request with the PEER Opcode. Processing SHOULD be performed in the
order of the following paragraphs.
The following fields from a PEER request are copied into the
response: Protocol, Internal Port, Remote Peer IP Address, Remote
Peer Port, and Mapping Nonce.
When an implicit dynamic mapping is created, some NATs and firewalls
validate destination addresses and will not create an implicit
dynamic mapping if the destination address is invalid (e.g.,
127.0.0.1). If a PCP-controlled device does such validation for
implicit dynamic mappings, it SHOULD also do a similar validation of
the Remote Peer IP Address, Protocol, and Port for PEER-created
explicit dynamic mappings. If the validation determines the Remote
Peer IP Address of a PEER request is invalid, then no mapping is
created, and a MALFORMED_REQUEST error result is returned.
On receiving the PEER Opcode, the PCP server examines the mapping
table for a matching five-tuple { Protocol, Internal Address,
Internal Port, Remote Peer Address, Remote Peer Port }.
If no matching mapping is found, and the Suggested External Address
and Port are either zero or can be honored for the specified
Protocol, a new mapping is created. By having PEER create such a
mapping, we avoid a race condition between the PEER request or the
initial outgoing packet arriving at the NAT or firewall device first,
and allow PEER to be used to recreate an outbound dynamic mapping
(see last paragraph of Section 16.3.1). Thereafter, this PEER-
created mapping is treated as if it was an implicit dynamic outbound
mapping (e.g., as if the PCP client sent a TCP SYN) and a Lifetime
appropriate to such a mapping is returned (note: on many NATs and
firewalls, such mapping lifetimes are very short until the bi-
directional traffic is seen by the NAT or firewall).
If no matching mapping is found, and the Suggested External Address
and Port cannot be honored, then no new state is created, and the
error CANNOT_PROVIDE_EXTERNAL is returned.
If a matching mapping is found, but no pervious PEER Opcode was
successfully processed for this mapping, then the Suggested External
Address and Port values in the request are ignored, Lifetime of that
mapping is adjusted as described below, and information about the
existing mapping is returned. This allows a client to explicitly
extend the lifetime of an existing mapping and/or to learn an
existing mapping's External Address, Port and lifetime. The Mapping
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 56]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
Nonce is remembered for this mapping.
If operating in the Simple Threat Model (Section 18.1), and the
Internal port, Protocol, and Internal Address match a mapping that
already exists, but the Mapping Nonce does not match (that is, a
previous PEER request was processed), the request MUST be rejected
with a NOT_AUTHORIZED error with the Lifetime of the error indicating
duration of that existing mapping. The PCP server only needs to
remember one Mapping Nonce value for each mapping.
Processing the lifetime value of the PEER Opcode is described in
Section 15. Sending a PEER request with a very short Requested
Lifetime can be used to query the lifetime of an existing mapping.
If all of the preceding operations were successful (did not generate
an error response), then a SUCCESS response is generated, with the
Lifetime field containing the lifetime of the mapping.
If a PEER-created or PEER-managed mapping is not renewed using PEER,
then it reverts to the NAT's usual behavior for implicit mappings,
e.g., continued outbound traffic keeps the mapping alive, as per the
NAT or firewall device's existing policy. A PEER-created or PEER-
managed mapping may be terminated at any time by action of the TCP
client or server (e.g., due to TCP FIN or TCP RST), as per the NAT or
firewall device's existing policy.
12.4. Processing a PEER Response
This section describes the operation of a client when processing a
response with the PEER Opcode.
After performing common PCP response processing, the response is
further matched with an outstanding PEER request by comparing the
Internal IP Address (the destination IP address of the PCP response,
or other IP address specified via the THIRD_PARTY option), the
Protocol, the Internal Port, the Remote Peer Address, the Remote Peer
Port, and the Mapping Nonce. Other fields are not compared, because
the PCP server sets those fields to provide information about the
mapping created by the Opcode. The PCP server will send a Mapping
Update (Section 14.2) if the mapping changes (e.g., due to IP
renumbering).
If the result code is NO_RESOURCES and the request was for the
creation or renewal of a mapping, then the PCP client SHOULD NOT send
further requests for any new mappings to that PCP server for the
(limited) value of the Lifetime.
On a successful response, the application can use the assigned
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 57]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
lifetime value to reduce its frequency of application keepalives for
that particular NAT mapping. Of course, there may be other reasons,
specific to the application, to use more frequent application
keepalives. For example, the PCP assigned lifetime could be one hour
but the application may want to maintain state on its server (e.g.,
"busy" / "away") more frequently than once an hour. If the response
indicates an unexpected IP address or port (e.g., due to IP
renumbering), the PCP client will want to re-establish its connection
to its remote server.
If the PCP client wishes to keep this mapping alive beyond the
indicated lifetime, it MAY rely on continued inside-to-outside
traffic to ensure the mapping will continue to exist, or it MAY issue
a new PCP request prior to the expiration. The recommended timings
for renewing PEER mappings are the same as for MAP mappings, as
described in Section 11.2.1.
Note: Implementations need to expect the PEER response may contain
an External IP Address with a different family than the Remote
Peer IP Address, e.g., when NAT64 or NAT46 are being used.
13. Options for MAP and PEER Opcodes
This section describes Options for the MAP and PEER Opcodes. These
Options MUST NOT appear with other Opcodes, unless permitted by those
other Opcodes.
13.1. THIRD_PARTY Option for MAP and PEER Opcodes
This Option is used when a PCP client wants to control a mapping to
an Internal Host other than itself. This is used with both MAP and
PEER Opcodes.
Due to security concerns with the THIRD_PARTY option, this Option
MUST NOT be implemented or used unless the network on which the PCP
messages are to be sent is fully trusted. For example if access
control lists are installed on the PCP client, PCP server, and the
network between them, so those ACLs allow only communications from a
trusted PCP client to the PCP server.
A management device would use this Option to control a PCP server on
behalf of users. For example, a management device located in a
network operations center, which presents a user interface to end
users or to network operations staff, and issues PCP requests with
the THIRD_PARTY option to the appropriate PCP server.
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 58]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
The THIRD_PARTY Option is formatted as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Option Code=1 | Reserved | Option Length=16 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Internal IP Address (128 bits) |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 13: THIRD_PARTY Option
The fields are described below:
Internal IP Address: Internal IP address for this mapping.
Option Name: THIRD_PARTY
Number: 1
Purpose: Indicates the MAP or PEER request is for a host other
than the host sending the PCP Option.
Valid for Opcodes: MAP, PEER
Length: 16 octets
May appear in: request. May appear in response only if it
appeared in the associated request.
Maximum occurrences: 1
A THIRD_PARTY Option MUST NOT contain the same address as the source
address of the packet. This is because many PCP servers may not
implement the THIRD_PARTY Option at all, and with those servers a
client redundantly using the THIRD_PARTY Option to specify its own IP
address would cause such mapping requests to fail where they would
otherwise have succeeded. A PCP server receiving a THIRD_PARTY
Option specifying the same address as the source address of the
packet MUST return a MALFORMED_REQUEST result code.
A PCP server MAY be configured to permit or to prohibit the use of
the THIRD_PARTY Option. If this Option is permitted, properly
authorized clients may perform these operations on behalf of other
hosts. If this Option is prohibited, and a PCP server receives a PCP
MAP request with a THIRD_PARTY Option, it MUST generate a
UNSUPP_OPTION response.
It is RECOMMENDED that customer premises equipment implementing a PCP
Server be configured to prohibit third party mappings by default.
With this default, if a user wants to create a third party mapping,
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 59]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
the user needs to interact out-of-band with their customer premises
router (e.g., using its HTTP administrative interface).
It is RECOMMENDED that service provider NAT and firewall devices
implementing a PCP Server be configured to permit the THIRD_PARTY
Option, when sent by a properly authorized host. If the packet
arrives from an unauthorized host, the PCP server MUST generate an
UNSUPP_OPTION error.
Note that the THIRD_PARTY Option is not needed for today's common
scenario of an ISP offering a single IP address to a customer who is
using NAT to share that address locally, since in this scenario all
the customer's hosts appear, from the point of view of the ISP, to be
a single host.
When a PCP client is using the THIRD_PARTY Option to make and
maintain mappings on behalf of some other device, it may be
beneficial if, where possible, the PCP client verifies that the other
device is actually present and active on the network. Otherwise the
PCP client risks maintaining those mappings forever, long after the
device that required them has gone. This would defeat the purpose of
PCP mappings having a finite lifetime so that they can be
automatically deleted after they are no longer needed.
13.2. PREFER_FAILURE Option for MAP Opcode
This Option is only used with the MAP Opcode.
This Option indicates that if the PCP server is unable to map both
the Suggested External Port and Suggested External Address, the PCP
server should not create a mapping. This differs from the behavior
without this Option, which is to create a mapping.
The PREFER_FAILURE Option is formatted as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Option Code=2 | Reserved | Option Length=0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 14: PREFER_FAILURE Option
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 60]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
Option Name: PREFER_FAILURE
Number: 2
Purpose: indicates that the PCP server should not create an
alternative mapping if the suggested external port and address
cannot be mapped.
Valid for Opcodes: MAP
Length: 0
May appear in: request. May appear in response only if it
appeared in the associated request.
Maximum occurrences: 1
The result code CANNOT_PROVIDE_EXTERNAL is returned if the Suggested
External Address, Protocol, and Port cannot be mapped. This can
occur because the External Port is already mapped to another host's
outbound dynamic mapping, an inbound dynamic mapping, a static
mapping, or the same Internal Address, Protocol, and Port already has
an outbound dynamic mapping which is mapped to a different External
Port than suggested. This can also occur because the External
Address is no longer available (e.g., due to renumbering). The
server MAY set the Lifetime in the response to the remaining lifetime
of the conflicting mapping + TIME_WAIT [RFC0793], rounded up to the
next larger integer number of seconds.
PREFER_FAILURE is never necessary for a PCP client to manage mappings
for itself, and its use causes additional work in the PCP client and
in the PCP server. This Option exists for interworking with non-PCP
mapping protocols that have different semantics than PCP (e.g., UPnP
IGDv1 interworking [I-D.ietf-pcp-upnp-igd-interworking], where the
semantics of UPnP IGDv1 only allow the UPnP IGDv1 client to dictate
mapping a specific port), or separate port allocation systems which
allocate ports to a subscriber (e.g., a subscriber-accessed web
portal operated by the same ISP that operates the PCP server). A PCP
server MAY support this Option, if its designers wish to support such
downstream devices or separate port allocation systems. PCP servers
that are not intended to interface with such systems are not required
to support this Option. PCP clients other than UPnP IGDv1
interworking clients or other than a separate port allocation system
SHOULD NOT use this Option because it results in inefficient
operation, and they cannot safely assume that all PCP servers will
implement it. It is anticipated that this Option will be deprecated
in the future as more clients adopt PCP natively and the need for
this Option declines.
If a PCP request contains the PREFER_FAILURE option and has zero in
the Suggested External Port field, or has the all-zeros IPv4 or all-
zeros IPv6 address in the Suggested External Address field, it is
invalid. The PCP server MUST reject such a message with the
MALFORMED_OPTION error code.
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 61]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
PCP servers MAY choose to rate-limit their handling of PREFER_FAILURE
requests, to protect themselves from a rapid flurry of 65535
consecutive PREFER_FAILURE requests from clients probing to discover
which external ports are available.
There can exist a race condition between the MAP Opcode using the
PREFER_FAILURE option and Mapping Update (Section 14.2). For
example, a previous host on the local network could have previously
had the same Internal Address, with a mapping for the same Internal
Port. At about the same moment that the current host sends a MAP
Request using the PREFER_FAILURE option, the PCP server could send a
spontaneous mapping update for the old mapping due to an external
configuration change, which could appear to be a reply to the new
mapping request. Because of this, the PCP client MUST validate that
the External IP Address, Protocol, Port and Nonce in a success
response matches the associated suggested values from the request.
If they don't match, it is because the Mapping Update was sent before
the MAP request was processed.
13.3. FILTER Option for MAP Opcode
This Option is only used with the MAP Opcode.
This Option indicates that filtering incoming packets is desired.
The protocol being filtered is indicated by the Protocol field in the
MAP Request, and the Remote Peer IP Address and Remote Peer Port of
the FILTER Option indicate the permitted remote peer's source IP
address and source port for packets from the Internet; other traffic
from other addresses is blocked. The remote peer prefix length
indicates the length of the remote peer's IP address that is
significant; this allows a single Option to permit an entire subnet.
After processing this MAP request containing the FILTER Option and
generating a successful response, the PCP-controlled device will drop
packets received on its public-facing interface that don't match the
filter fields. After dropping the packet, if its security policy
allows, the PCP-controlled device MAY also generate an ICMP error in
response to the dropped packet.
The use of the FILTER Option can be seen as a performance
optimization. Since all software using PCP to receive incoming
connections also has to deal with the case where it may be directly
connected to the Internet and receive unrestricted incoming TCP
connections and UDP packets, if it wishes to restrict incoming
traffic to a specific source address or group of source addresses
such software already needs to check the source address of incoming
traffic and reject unwanted traffic. However, the FILTER Option is a
particularly useful performance optimization for battery powered
wireless devices, because it can enable them to conserve battery
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 62]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
power by not having to wake up just to reject unwanted traffic.
The FILTER Option is formatted as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Option Code=3 | Reserved | Option Length=20 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | Prefix Length | Remote Peer Port |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Remote Peer IP address (128 bits) |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 15: FILTER Option layout
These fields are described below:
Reserved: 8 reserved bits, MUST be sent as 0 and MUST be ignored
when received.
Prefix Length: indicates how many bits of the IPv4 or IPv6 address
are relevant for this filter. The value 0 indicates "no filter",
and will remove all previous filters. See below for detail.
Remote Peer Port: the port number of the remote peer. The value 0
indicates "all ports".
Remote Peer IP address: The IP address of the remote peer.
Option Name: FILTER
Number: 3
Purpose: specifies a filter for incoming packets
Valid for Opcodes: MAP
Length: 20 octets
May appear in: request. May appear in response only if it
appeared in the associated request.
Maximum occurrences: as many as fit within maximum PCP message
size
The Prefix Length indicates how many bits of the address are used for
the filter. For IPv4 addresses (which are encoded using the IPv4-
mapped address format (::FFFF:0:0/96)), this means valid prefix
lengths are between 96 and 128 bits, inclusive. That is, add 96 to
the IPv4 prefix length. For IPv6 addresses, valid prefix lengths are
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 63]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
between 0 and 128 bits, inclusive. Values outside those ranges cause
the PCP server to return the MALFORMED_OPTION result code.
If multiple occurrences of the FILTER Option exist in the same MAP
request, they are processed in the order received (as per normal PCP
Option processing) and they MAY overlap the filtering requested. If
an existing mapping exists (with or without a filter) and the server
receives a MAP request with FILTER, the filters indicated in the new
request are added to any existing filters. If a MAP request has a
lifetime of 0 and contains the FILTER Option, the error
MALFORMED_OPTION is returned.
If any occurrences of the FILTER Option in a request packet are not
successfully processed then an error is returned (e.g.,
MALFORMED_OPTION if one of the Options was malformed) and as with
other PCP errors, returning an error causes no state to be changed in
the PCP server or in the PCP-controlled device.
To remove all existing filters, the Prefix Length 0 is used. There
is no mechanism to remove a specific filter.
To change an existing filter, the PCP client sends a MAP request
containing two FILTER Options, the first Option containing a Prefix
Length of 0 (to delete all existing filters) and the second
containing the new remote peer's IP address, protocol, and port.
Other FILTER Options in that PCP request, if any, add more allowed
Remote Peers.
The PCP server or the PCP-controlled device is expected to have a
limit on the number of remote peers it can support. This limit might
be as small as one. If a MAP request would exceed this limit, the
entire MAP request is rejected with the result code
EXCESSIVE_REMOTE_PEERS, and the state on the PCP server is unchanged.
All PCP servers MUST support at least one filter per MAP mapping.
14. Rapid Recovery
PCP includes a rapid recovery feature, which allows PCP clients to
repair failed mappings within seconds, rather than the minutes or
hours it might take if they relied solely on waiting for the next
routine renewal of the mapping. Mapping failures may occur when a
NAT gateway is rebooted and loses its mapping state, or when a NAT
gateway has its external IP address changed so that its current
mapping state becomes invalid.
The PCP rapid recovery feature enables users to, for example, connect
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 64]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
to remote machines using ssh, and then reboot their NAT or firewall
device (or even replace it with completely new hardware) without
losing their established ssh connections.
Use of PCP rapid recovery is a performance optimization to PCP's
routine self-healing. Without rapid recovery, PCP clients will still
recreate their correct state when they next renew their mappings, but
this routine self-healing process may take hours rather than seconds,
and will probably not happen fast enough to prevent active TCP
connections from timing out.
There are two mechanisms to perform rapid recovery, described below.
A PCP server that can lose state (e.g., due to reboot) or might have
a mapping change (e.g., due to IP renumbering) MUST implement either
the Announce Opcode or the Mapping Update mechanism and SHOULD
implement both mechanisms. Failing to implement and deploy a rapid
recovery mechanism will encourage application developers to feel the
need to refresh their PCP state more frequently than necessary,
causing more network traffic.
14.1. ANNOUNCE Opcode
This rapid recovery mechanism uses the ANNOUNCE Opcode. When the PCP
server loses its state (e.g., it lost its state when rebooted), it
sends the ANNOUNCE response to the link-scoped multicast address
(specific address explained below) if a multicast network exists on
its local interface or, if configured with the IP address(es) and
port(s) of PCP client(s), sends unicast ANNOUNCE responses to those
address(es) and port(s). This means ANNOUNCE may not be available on
all networks (such as networks without a multicast link between the
PCP server and its PCP clients). Additionally, an ANNOUNCE request
can be sent (unicast) by a PCP client which elicits a unicast
ANNOUNCE response like any other Opcode.
14.1.1. ANNOUNCE Operation
The PCP ANNOUNCE Opcode requests and respones have no Opcode-specific
payload (that is, the length of the Opcode-specific data is zero).
The Requested Lifetime field of requests and Lifetime field of
responses are both set to 0 on transmission and ignored on reception.
If a PCP server receives an ANNOUNCE request, it first parses it and
generates a SUCCESS if parsing and processing of ANNOUNCE is
successful. An error is generated if the Client's IP Address field
does not match the packet source address, or the request packet is
otherwise malformed, such as packet length less than 24 octets. Note
that, in the future, Options MAY be sent with the PCP ANNOUNCE
Opcode; PCP clients and servers need to be prepared to receive
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 65]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
Options with the ANNOUNCE Opcode.
Discussion: Client-to-server request messages are sent to
listening UDP port 5351 on the server; server-to-client multicast
notifications are sent to listening UDP port 5350 on the client.
The reason the same UDP port is not used for both purposes is that
a single device may have multiple roles. For example, a multi-
function home gateway that provides NAT service (PCP server) may
also provide printer sharing (which wants a PCP client), or a home
computer (PCP client) may also provide "Internet Sharing" (NAT)
functionality (which needs to offer PCP service). Such devices
need to act as both a PCP Server and a PCP Client at the same
time, and the software that implements the PCP Server on the
device may not be the same software component that implements the
PCP Client. The software that implements the PCP Server needs to
listen for unicast client requests, whereas the software that
implements the PCP Client needs to listen for multicast restart
announcements. In many networking APIs it is difficult or
impossible to have two independent clients listening for both
unicasts and multicasts on the same port at the same time. For
this reason, two ports are used.
14.1.2. Generating and Processing a Solicited ANNOUNCE Message
The PCP ANNOUNCE Opcode MAY be sent (unicast) by a PCP client. The
Requested Lifetime value MUST be set to zero.
When the PCP server receives the ANNOUNCE Opcode and successfully
parses and processes it, it generates SUCCESS response with an
Assigned Lifetime of zero.
This functionality allows a PCP client to determine a server's Epoch,
or to determine if a PCP server is running, without changing the
server's state.
14.1.3. Generating and Processing an Unsolicited ANNOUNCE Message
When sending unsolicited responses, the ANNOUNCE Opcode MUST have
Result Code equal to zero (SUCCESS), and the packet MUST be sent from
the unicast IP address and UDP port number on which PCP requests are
received (so PCP response processing accepts the message, see
Section 8.3). This message is most typically multicast, but can also
be unicast. Multicast PCP restart announcements are sent to
224.0.0.1:5350 and/or [ff02::1]:5350, as described below. Sending
PCP restart announcements via unicast requires that the PCP server
know the IP address(es) and port(s) of its listening clients, which
means that sending PCP restart announcements via unicast is only
applicable to PCP servers that retain knowledge of the IP address(es)
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 66]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
and port(s) of their clients even after they otherwise lose the rest
of their state.
When a PCP server device that implements this functionality reboots,
restarts its NAT engine, or otherwise enters a state where it may
have lost some or all of its previous mapping state (or enters a
state where it doesn't even know whether it may have had prior state
that it lost) it MUST inform PCP clients of this fact by unicasting
or multicasting a gratuitous PCP ANNOUNCE Opcode response packet, as
shown below, via paths over which it accepts PCP requests. If
sending a multicast ANNOUNCE message, a PCP server device which
accepts PCP requests over IPv4 sends the Restart Announcement to the
IPv4 multicast address 224.0.0.1:5350 (224.0.0.1 is the All Hosts
multicast group address), and a PCP server device which accepts PCP
requests over IPv6 sends the Restart Announcement to the IPv6
multicast address [ff02::1]:5350 (ff02::1 is for all nodes on the
local segment). A PCP server device which accepts PCP requests over
both IPv4 and IPv6 sends a pair of Restart Announcements, one to each
multicast address. If sending a unicast ANNOUNCE messages, it sends
ANNOUNCE response message to the IP address(es) and port(s) of its
PCP clients. To accommodate packet loss, the PCP server device MAY
transmit such packets (or packet pairs) up to ten times (with an
appropriate Epoch time value in each to reflect the passage of time
between transmissions) provided that the interval between the first
two notifications is at least 250ms, and the interval between
subsequent notification at least doubles.
A PCP client that sends PCP requests to a PCP Server via a multicast-
capable path, and implements the Restart Announcement feature, and
wishes to receive these announcements, MUST listen to receive these
PCP Restart Announcements (gratuitous PCP ANNOUNCE Opcode response
packets) on the appropriate multicast-capable interfaces on which it
sends PCP requests, and MAY also listen for unicast announcements
from the server too, (using the UDP port it already uses to issue
unicast PCP requests to, and receive unicast PCP responses from, that
server). A PCP client device which sends PCP requests using IPv4
listens for packets sent to the IPv4 multicast address 224.0.0.1:
5350. A PCP client device which sends PCP requests using IPv6
listens for packets sent to the IPv6 multicast address [ff02::1]:
5350. A PCP client device which sends PCP requests using both IPv4
and IPv6 listens for both types of Restart Announcement. The
SO_REUSEPORT socket option or equivalent should be used for the
multicast UDP port, if required by the host OS to permit multiple
independent listeners on the same multicast UDP port.
Upon receiving a unicasted or multicasted PCP ANNOUNCE Opcode
response packet, a PCP client MUST (as it does with all received PCP
response packets) inspect the Announcement's source IP address, and
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 67]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
if the Epoch time value is outside the expected range for that
server, it MUST wait a random amount of time between 0 and 5 seconds
(to prevent synchronization of all PCP clients), then for all PCP
mappings it made at that server address the client issues new PCP
requests to recreate any lost mapping state. The use of the
Suggested External IP Address and Suggested External Port fields in
the client's renewal requests allows the client to remind the
restarted PCP server device of what mappings the client had
previously been given, so that in many cases the prior state can be
recreated. For PCP server devices that reboot relatively quickly it
is usually possible to reconstruct lost mapping state fast enough
that existing TCP connections and UDP communications do not time out,
and continue without failure. As for all PCP response messages, if
the Epoch time value is within the expected range for that server,
the PCP client does not recreate its mappings. As for all PCP
response messages, after receiving and validating the ANNOUNCE
message, the client updates its own Epoch time for that server, as
described in Section 8.5.
14.2. PCP Mapping Update
This rapid recovery mechanism is used when the PCP server remembers
its state and determines its existing mappings are invalid (e.g., IP
renumbering changes the External IP Address of a PCP-controlled NAT).
It is anticipated that servers which are routinely reconfigured by an
administrator or have their WAN address changed frequently will
implement this feature (e.g., residential CPE routers). It is
anticipated that servers which are not routinely reconfigured will
not implement this feature (e.g., service provider-operated CGN).
If a PCP server device has not forgotten its mapping state, but for
some other reason has determined that some or all of its mappings
have become unusable (e.g., when a home gateway is assigned a
different external IPv4 address by the upstream DHCP server) then the
PCP server device automatically repairs its mappings and notifies its
clients by following the procedure described below.
For PCP-managed mappings, for each one the PCP server device should
update the External IP Address and External Port to appropriate
available values, and then send unicast PCP MAP or PEER responses (as
appropriate for the mapping) to inform the PCP client of the new
External IP Address and External Port. Such unsolicited responses
are identical to the MAP or PEER responses normally returned in
response to client MAP or PEER requests, containing newly updated
External IP Address and External Port values, and are sent to the
same client IP address and port that the PCP server used to send the
prior response for that mapping. If the earlier associated request
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 68]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
contained the THIRD_PARTY Option, the THIRD_PARTY Option MUST also
appear in the Mapping Update as it is necessary for the PCP client to
disambiguate the response. If the earlier associated request
contained the PREFER_FAILURE option, and the same external IP
address, protocol, and port cannot be provided, the error
CANNOT_PROVIDE_EXTERNAL SHOULD be sent. If the earlier associated
request contained the FILTER option, the filters are moved to the new
mapping and the FILTER Option is sent in the Mapping Update response.
Non-mandatory Options SHOULD NOT be sent in the Mapping Update
response.
Discussion: It could have been possible to design this so that the
PCP server (1) sent an ANNOUNCE Opcode to the PCP client, the PCP
client reacted by (2) sending a new MAP request and (3) receiving
a MAP response. Instead, that design is short-cutted by the
server simply sending the message it would have sent in (3).
To accommodate packet loss, the PCP server device SHOULD transmit
such packets 3 times, with an appropriate Epoch time value in each to
reflect the passage of time between transmissions. The interval
between the first two notifications MUST be at least 250ms, and the
third packet after a 500ms interval. Once the PCP server has
received a refreshed state for that mapping, the PCP server SHOULD
cease those retransmissions for that mapping, as it serves no further
purpose to continue sending messages regarding that mapping.
Upon receipt of such an updated MAP or PEER response, a PCP client
uses the information in the response to adjust rendezvous servers or
re-connect to servers, respectively. For MAP, this would means
updating the DNS entries or other address and port information
recorded with some kind of application-specific rendezvous server.
For PEER responses giving a CANNOT_PROVIDE_EXTERNAL error, this would
typically mean establishing new connections to servers. Any time the
external address or port changes, existing TCP and UDP connections
will be lost; PCP can't avoid that, but does provide immediate
notification of the event to lessen the impact.
15. Mapping Lifetime and Deletion
The PCP client requests a certain lifetime, and the PCP server
responds with the assigned lifetime. The PCP server MAY grant a
lifetime smaller or larger than the requested lifetime. The PCP
server SHOULD be configurable for permitted minimum and maximum
lifetime, and the minimum value SHOULD be 120 seconds. The maximum
value SHOULD be the remaining lifetime of the IP address assigned to
the PCP client if that information is available (e.g., from the DHCP
server), or half the lifetime of IP address assignments on that
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 69]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
network if the remaining lifetime is not available, or 24 hours.
Excessively long lifetimes can cause consumption of ports even if the
Internal Host is no longer interested in receiving the traffic or is
no longer connected to the network. These recommendations are not
strict, and deployments should evaluate the trade offs to determine
their own minimum and maximum lifetime values.
Once a PCP server has responded positively to a MAP request for a
certain lifetime, the port mapping is active for the duration of the
lifetime unless the lifetime is reduced by the PCP client (to a
shorter lifetime or to zero) or until the PCP server loses its state
(e.g., crashes). Mappings created by PCP MAP requests are not
special or different from mappings created in other ways. In
particular, it is implementation-dependent if outgoing traffic
extends the lifetime of such mappings beyond the PCP-assigned
lifetime. PCP clients MUST NOT depend on this behavior to keep
mappings active, and MUST explicitly renew their mappings as required
by the Lifetime field in PCP response messages.
Upon receipt of a PCP response with an absurdly long Assigned
Lifetime the PCP client SHOULD behave as if it received a more sane
value (e.g., 24 hours), and renew the mapping accordingly, to ensure
that if the static mapping is removed the client will continue to
maintain the mapping it desires.
An application that forgets its PCP-assigned mappings (e.g., the
application or OS crashes) will request new PCP mappings. This may
consume port mappings, if the application binds to a different
Internal Port every time it runs. The application will also likely
initiate new implicit dynamic outbound mappings without using PCP,
which will also consume port mappings. If there is a port mapping
quota for the Internal Host, frequent restarts such as this may
exhaust the quota and using the same Mapping Nonce can help alleviate
such exhaustion.
To help clean PCP state, it is RECOMMENDED that devices which combine
IP address assignment (e.g., DHCP server) with the PCP server
function (e.g., such as a residential CPE) flush PCP state when an IP
address is allocated to a new host, because the new host will be
unable perform the functions described in the previous paragaph
because the new host does not know the previous host's Mapping Nonce
value. It is good hygiene to also flush TCP and UDP flow state of
NAT or fireall functions, although out of scope of this document.
To reduce unwanted traffic and data corruption for both TCP and UDP,
the Assigned External Port created by the MAP Opcode or PEER Opcode
SHOULD NOT be re-used for the same interval enforced by NAT for
implicitly creating mappings, which is typically the maximum segment
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 70]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
lifetime interval of 120 seconds [RFC0793]. To reduce port stealing
attacks, the Assigned External Port SHOULD NOT be re-used by the same
Client IP Address (or Internal IP Address if using the THIRD_PARTY
Option) for the duration the PCP-controlled device keeps a mapping
for active bi-directional traffic (e.g., 2 minutes for UDP [RFC4787],
2 hours 4 minutes for TCP [RFC5382]). However, within the above
times, the PCP server SHOULD allow a request using the same Client IP
Address (and same Internal IP Address if using the THIRD_PARTY
Option), Internal Port, and Mapping Nonce to re-acquire the same
External Port.
The assigned lifetime is calculated by subtracting (a) zero or the
number of seconds since the internal host sent a packet for this
mapping from (b) the lifetime the PCP-controlled device uses for
transitory connection idle-timeout (e.g., a NAT device might use 2
minutes for UDP [RFC4787] or 4 minutes for TCP [RFC5382]). If the
result is a negative number, the assigned lifetime is 0.
15.1. Lifetime Processing for the MAP Opcode
If the the requested lifetime is zero then:
o If both the protocol and internal port are non-zero, it indicates
a request to delete the indicated mapping immediately.
o If the protocol is non-zero and the internal port is zero, it
indicates a request to delete a previous 'wildcard' (all-ports)
mapping for that protocol.
o If both the protocol and internal port are zero, it indicates a
request to delete all mappings for this Internal Address for all
transport protocols. Such a request is rejected with a
NOT_AUTHORIZED error. To delete all mappings the client has to
send separate MAP requests with appropriate Mapping Nonce values.
o If the protocol is zero and the internal port is non-zero, then
the request is invalid and the PCP Server MUST return a
MALFORMED_REQUEST error to the client.
In requests where the requested Lifetime is 0, the Suggested External
Address and Suggested External Port fields MUST be set to zero on
transmission and MUST be ignored on reception, and these fields MUST
be copied into the Assigned External IP Address and Assigned External
Port of the response.
PCP MAP requests can only delete or shorten lifetimes of MAP-created
mappings. If the PCP client attempts to delete a static mapping
(i.e., a mapping created outside of PCP itself), or an outbound
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 71]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
(implicit or PEER-created) mapping, the PCP server MUST return
NOT_AUTHORIZED. If the PCP client attempts to delete a mapping that
does not exist, the SUCCESS result code is returned (this is
necessary for PCP to return the same response for the same request).
If the deletion request was properly formatted and successfully
processed, a SUCCESS response is generated with the assigned lifetime
of the mapping and the server copies the protocol and internal port
number from the request into the response. An inbound mapping (i.e.,
static mapping or MAP- created dynamic mapping) MUST NOT have its
lifetime reduced by transport protocol messages (e.g., TCP RST, TCP
FIN). Note the THIRD_PARTY Option, if authorized, can also delete
PCP-created mappings (see Section 13.1).
16. Implementation Considerations
Section 16 provides non-normative guidance that may be useful to
implementers.
16.1. Implementing MAP with EDM port-mapping NAT
For implicit dynamic outbound mappings, some existing NAT devices
have endpoint-independent mapping (EIM) behavior while other NAT
devices have endpoint-dependent mapping (EDM) behavior. NATs which
have EIM behavior do not suffer from the problem described in this
section. The IETF strongly encourages EIM behavior
[RFC4787][RFC5382].
In EDM NAT devices, the same external port may be used by an outbound
dynamic mapping and an inbound dynamic mapping (from the same
Internal Host or from a different Internal Host). This complicates
the interaction with the MAP Opcode. With such NAT devices, there
are two ways envisioned to implement the MAP Opcode:
1. Have outbound mappings use a different set of External ports than
inbound mappings (e.g., those created with MAP), thus reducing
the interaction problem between them; or
2. On arrival of a packet (inbound from the Internet or outbound
from an Internal Host), first attempt to use a dynamic outbound
mapping to process that packet. If none match, attempt to use an
inbound mapping to process that packet. This effectively
'prioritizes' outbound mappings above inbound mappings.
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 72]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
16.2. Lifetime of Explicit and Implicit Dynamic Mappings
No matter if a NAT is EIM or EDM, it is possible that one (or more)
outbound mappings, using the same internal port on the Internal Host,
might be created before or after a MAP request. When this occurs, it
is important that the NAT honor the Lifetime returned in the MAP
response. Specifically, if a mapping was created with the MAP
Opcode, the implementation needs to ensure that termination of an
outbound mapping (e.g., via a TCP FIN handshake) does not prematurely
destroy the MAP-created inbound mapping.
16.3. PCP Failure Recovery
If an event occurs that causes the PCP server to lose dynamic mapping
state (such as a crash or power outage), the mappings created by PCP
are lost. Occasional loss of state may be unavoidable in a
residential NAT device which does not write transient information to
non-volatile memory. Loss of state is expected to be rare in a
service provider environment (due to redundant power, disk drives for
storage, etc.). Of course, due to outright failure of service
provider equipment (e.g., software malfunction), state may still be
lost.
The Epoch Time allows a client to deduce when a PCP server may have
lost its state. When the Epoch Time value is observed to be outside
the expected range, the PCP client can attempt to recreate the
mappings following the procedures described in this section.
Further analysis of PCP failure scenarios is in
[I-D.boucadair-pcp-failure].
16.3.1. Recreating Mappings
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 a newly
rebooted PCP server it appears as a new mapping request. In the
normal process of routinely renewing its mappings before they expire,
a PCP client will automatically recreate all its lost mappings.
When the PCP server loses state and begins processing new PCP
messages, its Epoch time is reset and begins counting again. As the
result of receiving a packet where the Epoch time field is outside
the expected range (Section 8.5), indicating that a reboot or similar
loss of state has occurred, the client can renew its port mappings
sooner, without waiting for the normal routine renewal time.
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 73]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
16.3.2. Maintaining Mappings
A PCP client refreshes a mapping by sending a new PCP request
containing information from the earlier PCP response. The PCP server
will respond indicating the new lifetime. It is possible, due to
reconfiguration or failure of the PCP server, that the External IP
Address and/or External Port, or the PCP server itself, has changed
(due to a new route to a different PCP server). Such events are
rare, but not an error. The PCP server will simply return a new
External Address and/or External Port to the client, and the client
should record this new External Address and Port with its rendezvous
service. To detect such events more quickly, a server that requires
extremely high availability may find it beneficial to use shorter
lifetimes in its PCP mappings requests, so that it communicates with
the PCP server more often. This is an engineering trade-off based on
(i) the acceptable downtime for the service in question, (ii) the
expected likelihood of NAT or firewall state loss, and (iii) the
amount of PCP maintenance traffic that is acceptable.
If the PCP client has several mappings, the Epoch Time value only
needs to be retrieved for one of them to determine whether or not it
appears the PCP server may have suffered a catastrophic loss of
state. If the client wishes to check the PCP server's Epoch Time, it
sends a PCP request for any one of the client's mappings. This will
return the current Epoch Time value. In that request the PCP client
could extend the mapping lifetime (by asking for more time) or
maintain the current lifetime (by asking for the same number of
seconds that it knows are remaining of the lifetime).
If a PCP client changes its Internal IP Address (e.g., because the
Internal Host has moved to a new network), and the PCP client wishes
to still receive incoming traffic, it needs create new mappings on
that new network. New mappings will typically also require an update
to the application-specific rendezvous server if the External Address
or Port are different from the previous values (see Section 10.1 and
Section 11.5).
16.3.3. SCTP
Although SCTP has port numbers like TCP and UDP, SCTP works
differently when behind an address-sharing NAT, in that SCTP port
numbers are not changed [I-D.ietf-behave-sctpnat]. Outbound dynamic
SCTP mappings use the verification tag of the association instead of
the local and remote peer port numbers. As with TCP, explicit
outbound mappings can be made to reduce keepalive intervals, and
explicit inbound mappings can be made by passive listeners expecting
to receive new associations at the external port.
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 74]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
Because an SCTP-aware NAT does not (currently) rewrite SCTP port
numbers, it will not be able to assign an External Port that is
different from the client's Internal Port. A PCP client making a MAP
request for SCTP should be aware of this restriction. The PCP client
SHOULD make its SCTP MAP request just as it would for a TCP MAP
request: in its initial PCP MAP request it SHOULD specify zero for
the External Address and Port, and then in subsequent renewals it
SHOULD echo the assigned External Address and Port. However, since a
current SCTP-aware NAT can only assign an External Port that is the
same as the Internal Port, it may not be able to do that if the
External Port is already assigned to a different PCP client. This is
likely if there is more than one instance of a given SCTP service on
the local network, since both instances are likely to listen on the
same well-known SCTP port for that service on their respective hosts,
but they can't both have the same External Port on the NAT gateway's
External Address. A particular External Port may not be assignable
for other reasons, such as when it is already in use by the NAT
device itself, or otherwise prohibited by policy, as described in
Section 11.3. In the event that the External Port matching the
Internal Port cannot be assigned (and the SCTP-aware NAT does not
perform SCTP port rewriting) then the SCTP-aware NAT MUST return a
CANNOT_PROVIDE_EXTERNAL error to the requesting PCP client. Note
that this restriction places extra burden on the SCTP server whose
MAP request failed, because it then has to tear down its exiting
listening socket and try again with a different Internal Port,
repeatedly until it is successful in finding an External Port it can
use.
The SCTP complications described above occur because of address
sharing. The SCTP complications are avoided when address sharing is
avoided (e.g., 1:1 NAT, firewall).
16.4. Source Address Replicated in PCP Header
All PCP requests include the PCP client's IP address replicated in
the PCP header. This is used to detect address rewriting (NAT)
between the PCP client and its PCP server. On operating systems that
support the sockets API, the following steps are RECOMMENDED for a
PCP client to insert the correct source address and port in the PCP
header:
1. Create a UDP socket.
2. Call "connect" on this UDP socket using the address and port of
the desired PCP server.
3. Call the getsockname() function to retrieve a sockaddr containing
the source address the kernel will use for UDP packets sent
through this socket.
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 75]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
4. If the IP address is an IPv4 address, encode the address into an
IPv4-mapped IPv6 address. Place the native IPv6 address or IPv4-
mapped IPv6 address into the PCP Client's IP Address field in the
PCP header.
5. Send PCP requests using this connected UDP socket.
16.5. State Diagram
Each mapping entry of the PCP-controlled device would go through the
state machine shown below. This state diagram is non-normative.
CLOSE_MSG or
(NO_TRAFFIC and EXPIRY) +---------+ NO_TRAFFIC and EXPIRY
+-------------->| |<------------+
| |NO_ENTRY | |
| +-----------| |---------+ |
| | +---------+ | |
| | ^ | | |
| | NO_TRAFFIC | | | |
| | or | | | |
| | CLOSE_MSGS | | | |
| | | | | |
| |PEER request | | MAP request| |
| V | | V |
+---------+ | | +---------+
+-->| "P", | | | M-R | "M", |<--+
P-R | | PEER |-----------|--|-------->| MAP | | M-R or
+---| mapping| | | | mapping|---+ P-R or
+---------+ | | +---------+ CLOSE_MSGS
| ^ | | ^ |
| |PEER request | | MAP request| |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | outbound | |
| | | | TRAFFIC | |
| | | V | |
| | +---------+ | |
| +-----------| "I", |---------+ |
| | implicit| |
+-------------->| mapping |<------------+
TRAFFIC and EXPIRY +---------+ TRAFFIC and EXPIRY
Figure 16: PCP State Diagram
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 76]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
The meanings of the states and events are:
NO_ENTRY: Invalid state represents Entry does not exist. This is
the only possible start state.
M-R: MAP request
P-R: PEER request
M: Mapping entry when created by MAP request
P: Mapping entry when created/managed by PEER request
I: Implicit mapping created by an outgoing packet from the
client (e.g., TCP SYN), and also the state when a PCP-created
mapping's lifetime expires while there is still active
traffic.
EXPIRY: PEER or MAP lifetime expired
TRAFFIC: Traffic seen by PCP-controlled device using this entry
within the expiry time for that entry. This traffic may be
inbound or outbound.
NO_TRAFFIC: Indicates that there is no TRAFFIC.
CLOSE_MSG: Protocol messages from the client or server to close
the session (e.g., TCP FIN or TCP RST), as per the NAT or
firewall device's handling of such protocol messages.
Notes on the diagram:
1. The 'and' clause indicates the events on either side of 'and' are
required for the state-transition. The 'or' clause indicates
either one of the events are enough for the state-transition.
2. Transition from state M to state I is implementation dependent.
17. Deployment Considerations
17.1. Ingress Filtering
As with implicit dynamic mappings created by outgoing TCP SYN
packets, explicit dynamic mappings created via PCP use the source IP
address of the packet as the Internal Address for the mappings.
Therefore ingress filtering [RFC2827] SHOULD be used on the path
between the Internal Host and the PCP Server to prevent the injection
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 77]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
of spoofed packets onto that path.
17.2. Mapping Quota
On PCP-controlled devices that create state when a mapping is created
(e.g., NAT), the PCP server SHOULD maintain per-host and/or per-
subscriber quotas for mappings. It is implementation-specific
whether the PCP server uses a separate quotas for implicit, explicit,
and static mappings, a combined quota for all of them, or some other
policy.
18. Security Considerations
The goal of the PCP protocol is to improve the ability of end nodes
to control their associated NAT state, and to improve the efficiency
and error handling of NAT mappings when compared to existing implicit
mapping mechanisms in NAT boxes and stateful firewalls. It is the
security goal of the PCP protocol to limit any new denial of service
opportunities, and to avoid introducing new attacks that can result
in unauthorized changes to mapping state. One of the most serious
consequences of unauthorized changes in mapping state is traffic
theft. All mappings that could be created by a specific host using
implicit mapping mechanisms are inherently considered to be
authorized. Confidentiality of mappings is not a requirement, even
in cases where the PCP messages may transit paths that would not be
travelled by the mapped traffic.
18.1. Simple Threat Model
PCP is secure against off-path attackers who cannot spoof a packet
that the PCP Server will view as a packet received from the internal
network. PCP is secure against off-path attackers who can spoof the
PCP server's IP address.
Defending against attackers who can modify or drop packets between
the internal network and the PCP server, or who can inject spoofed
packets that appear to come from the internal network is out of
scope. Such an attacker can re-direct traffic to a host of their
choosing.
A PCP Server is secure under this threat model if the PCP Server is
constrained so that it does not configure any explicit mapping that
it would not configure implicitly. In most cases, this means that
PCP Servers running on NAT boxes or stateful firewalls that support
the PEER and MAP Opcodes can be secure under this threat model if (1)
all of their hosts are within a single administrative domain (or if
the internal hosts can be securely partitioned into separate
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 78]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
administrative domains, as in the DS-Lite B4 case), (2) explicit
mappings are created with the same lifetime as implicit mappings, and
(3) the THIRD_PARTY option is not supported. PCP Servers can also
securely support the MAP Opcode under this threat model if the
security policy on the device running the PCP Server would permit
endpoint independent filtering of implicit mappings.
PCP Servers that comply with the Simple Threat Model and do not
implement a PCP security mechanism described in Section 18.2 MUST
enforce the constraints described in the paragraph above.
18.1.1. Attacks Considered
o If you allow multiple administrative domains to send PCP requests
to a single PCP server that does not enforce a boundary between
the domains, it is possible for a node in one domain to perform a
denial of service attack on other domains, or to capture traffic
that is intended for a node in another domain.
o If explicit mappings have longer lifetimes than implicit mappings,
it makes it easier to perpetrate a denial of service attack than
it would be if the PCP Server was not present.
o If the PCP Server supports deleting or reducing the lifetime of
existing mappings, this allows an attacking node to steal an
existing mapping and receive traffic that was intended for another
node.
o If the THIRD_PARTY Option is supported, this also allows an
attacker to open a window for an external node to attack an
internal node, allows an attacker to steal traffic that was
intended for another node, or may facilitate a denial of service
attack. One example of how the THIRD_PARTY Option could grant an
attacker more capability than a spoofed implicit mapping is that
the PCP server (especially if it is running in a service
provider's network) may not be aware of internal filtering that
would prevent spoofing an equivalent implicit mapping, such as
filtering between a guest and corporate network.
o If the MAP Opcode is supported by the PCP server in cases where
the security policy would not support endpoint independent
filtering of implicit mappings, then the MAP Opcode changes the
security properties of the device running the PCP Server by
allowing explicit mappings that violate the security policy.
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 79]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
18.1.2. Deployment Examples Supporting the Simple Threat Model
This section offers two examples of how the Simple Threat Model can
be supported in real-world deployment scenarios.
18.1.2.1. Residential Gateway Deployment
Parity with many currently-deployed residential gateways can be
achieved using a PCP Server that is constrained as described in
Section 18.1 above.
18.2. Advanced Threat Model
In the Advanced Threat Model the PCP protocol ensures that attackers
(on- or off-path) cannot create unauthorized mappings or make
unauthorized changes to existing mappings. The protocol must also
limit the opportunity for on- or off-path attackers to perpetrate
denial of service attacks.
The Advanced Threat Model security model will be needed in the
following cases:
o Security infrastructure equipment, such as corporate firewalls,
that does not create implicit mappings.
o Equipment (such as CGNs or service provider firewalls) that serve
multiple administrative domains and do not have a mechanism to
securely partition traffic from those domains.
o Any implementation that wants to be more permissive in authorizing
explicit mappings than it is in authorizing implicit mappings.
o Implementations that wish to support any deployment scenario that
does not meet the constraints described in Section 18.1.
To protect against attacks under this threat model, a PCP security
mechanism that provides an authenticated, integrity-protected
signaling channel would need to be specified.
PCP Servers that implement a PCP security mechanism MAY accept
unauthenticated requests. PCP Servers implementing the PCP security
mechanism MUST enforce the constraints described in Section 18.1
above, in their default configuration, when processing
unauthenticated requests.
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 80]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
18.3. Residual Threats
This section describes some threats that are not addressed in either
of the above threat models, and recommends appropriate mitigation
strategies.
18.3.1. Denial of Service
Because of the state created in a NAT or firewall, a per-host and/or
per-subscriber quota will likely exist for both implicit dynamic
mappings and explicit dynamic mappings. A host might make an
excessive number of implicit or explicit dynamic mappings, consuming
an inordinate number of ports, causing a denial of service to other
hosts. Thus, Section 17.2 recommends that hosts be limited to a
reasonable number of explicit dynamic mappings.
An attacker, on the path between the PCP client and PCP server, can
drop PCP requests, drop PCP responses, or spoof a PCP error, all of
which will effectively deny service. Through such actions, the PCP
client might not be aware the PCP server might have actually
processed the PCP request. An attacker sending a NO_RESOURCES error
can cause the PCP client to not send messages to that server for a
while. There is no mitigation to this on-path attacker.
18.3.2. Ingress Filtering
It is important to prevent a host from fraudulently creating,
deleting, or refreshing a mapping (or filtering) for another host,
because this can expose the other host to unwanted traffic, prevent
it from receiving wanted traffic, or consume the other host's mapping
quota. Both implicit and explicit dynamic mappings are created based
on the source IP address in the packet, and hence depend on ingress
filtering to guard against spoof source IP addresses.
18.3.3. Mapping Theft
In the time between when a PCP server loses state and the PCP client
notices the lower-than-expected Epoch Time value, it is possible that
the PCP client's mapping will be acquired by another host (via an
explicit dynamic mapping or implicit dynamic mapping). This means
incoming traffic will be sent to a different host ("theft"). Rapid
Recovery reduces this interval, but would not completely eliminate
this threat. The PCP client can reduce this interval by using a
relatively short lifetime; however, this increases the amount of PCP
chatter. This threat is reduced by using persistent storage of
explicit dynamic mappings in the PCP server (so it does not lose
explicit dynamic mapping state), or by ensuring the previous external
IP address, protocol, and port cannot be used by another host (e.g.,
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 81]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
by using a different IP address pool).
18.3.4. Attacks Against Server Discovery
This document does not specify server discovery, beyond contacting
the default gateway.
19. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to perform the following actions:
19.1. Port Number
PCP will use ports 5350 and 5351 (currently assigned by IANA to NAT-
PMP [I-D.cheshire-nat-pmp]). We request that IANA re-assign those
ports to PCP, and relinquish UDP port 44323.
[Note to RFC Editor: Please remove the text about relinquishing port
44323 prior to publication.]
19.2. Opcodes
IANA shall create a new protocol registry for PCP Opcodes, numbered
0-127, initially populated with the values:
value Opcode
----- -------------------------
0 ANNOUNCE
1 MAP
2 PEER
3-31 Standards Action [RFC5226]
32-63 Specification Required [RFC5226]
96-126 Private Use [RFC5226]
127 Reserved, Standards Action [RFC5226]
The value 127 is Reserved and may be assigned via Standards Action
[RFC5226]. The values in the range 3-31 can be assigned via
Standards Action [RFC5226], 32-63 via Specification Required
[RFC5226], and 96-126 is for Private Use [RFC5226].
19.3. Result Codes
IANA shall create a new registry for PCP result codes, numbered
0-255, initially populated with the result codes from Section 7.4.
The value 255 is Reserved and may be assigned via Standards Action
[RFC5226].
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 82]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
The values in the range 14-127 can be assigned via Standards Action
[RFC5226], 128-191 via Specification Required [RFC5226], and 191-254
is for Private Use [RFC5226].
19.4. Options
IANA shall create a new registry for PCP Options, numbered 0-255,
each with an associated mnemonic. The values 0-127 are mandatory-to-
process, and 128-255 are optional to process. The initial registry
contains the Options described in Section 13. The Option values 0,
127 and 255 are Reserved and may be assigned via Standards Action
[RFC5226].
Additional PCP Option codes in the ranges 4-63 and 128-191 can be
created via Standards Action [RFC5226], the ranges 64-95 and 192-223
are for Specification Required [RFC5226] and the ranges 96-126 and
224-254 are for Private Use [RFC5226].
Documents describing an Option should describe if the processing for
both the PCP client and server and the information below:
Option Name: <mnemonic>
Number: <value>
Purpose: <textual description>
Valid for Opcodes: <list of Opcodes>
Length: <rules for length>
May appear in: <requests/responses/both>
Maximum occurrences: <count>
20. Acknowledgments
Thanks to Xiaohong Deng, Alain Durand, Christian Jacquenet, Jacni
Qin, Simon Perreault, James Yu, Tina TSOU (Ting ZOU), Felipe Miranda
Costa, James Woodyatt, Dave Thaler, Masataka Ohta, Vijay K. Gurbani,
Loa Andersson, Richard Barnes, Russ Housley, Adrian Farrel, Pete
Resnick, Pasi Sarolahti, Robert Sparks, Wesley Eddy, Dan Harkins,
Peter Saint-Andre, Stephen Farrell, Ralph Droms, Felipe Miranda
Costa, Amit Jain, and Wim Henderickx for their comments and review.
Thanks to Simon Perreault for highlighting the interaction of dynamic
connections with PCP-created mappings.
Thanks to Francis Dupont for his several thorough reviews of the
specification, which improved the protocol significantly.
Thanks to T. S. Ranganathan for the state diagram.
Thanks to Peter Lothberg for clock skew information.
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 83]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
Thanks to Margaret Wasserman and Sam Hartman for writing the Security
Considerations section.
Thanks to authors of DHCPv6 for retransmission text.
21. References
21.1. Normative References
[RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
August 1980.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2827] Ferguson, P. and D. Senie, "Network Ingress Filtering:
Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source
Address Spoofing", BCP 38, RFC 2827, May 2000.
[RFC4086] Eastlake, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker, "Randomness
Requirements for Security", BCP 106, RFC 4086, June 2005.
[RFC4193] Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast
Addresses", RFC 4193, October 2005.
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008.
[RFC6056] Larsen, M. and F. Gont, "Recommendations for Transport-
Protocol Port Randomization", BCP 156, RFC 6056,
January 2011.
[proto_numbers]
IANA, "Protocol Numbers", 2011, <http://www.iana.org/
assignments/protocol-numbers/protocol-numbers.xml>.
21.2. Informative References
[I-D.boucadair-pcp-failure]
Boucadair, M., Dupont, F., and R. Penno, "Port Control
Protocol (PCP) Failure Scenarios",
draft-boucadair-pcp-failure-04 (work in progress),
August 2012.
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 84]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
[I-D.cheshire-dnsext-dns-sd]
Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "DNS-Based Service
Discovery", draft-cheshire-dnsext-dns-sd-11 (work in
progress), December 2011.
[I-D.cheshire-nat-pmp]
Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "NAT Port Mapping Protocol
(NAT-PMP)", draft-cheshire-nat-pmp-05 (work in progress),
September 2012.
[I-D.ietf-behave-lsn-requirements]
Perreault, S., Yamagata, I., Miyakawa, S., Nakagawa, A.,
and H. Ashida, "Common requirements for Carrier Grade NATs
(CGNs)", draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-09 (work in
progress), August 2012.
[I-D.ietf-behave-sctpnat]
Stewart, R., Tuexen, M., and I. Ruengeler, "Stream Control
Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Network Address Translation",
draft-ietf-behave-sctpnat-07 (work in progress),
October 2012.
[I-D.ietf-pcp-upnp-igd-interworking]
Boucadair, M., Dupont, F., 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-04 (work in
progress), September 2012.
[I-D.miles-behave-l2nat]
Miles, D. and M. Townsley, "Layer2-Aware NAT",
draft-miles-behave-l2nat-00 (work in progress),
March 2009.
[IGDv1] UPnP Gateway Committee, "WANIPConnection:1",
November 2001, <http://upnp.org/specs/gw/
UPnP-gw-WANIPConnection-v1-Service.pdf>.
[RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
RFC 793, September 1981.
[RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, R., Karrenberg, D., Groot, G., and
E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets",
BCP 5, RFC 1918, February 1996.
[RFC2136] Vixie, P., Thomson, S., Rekhter, Y., and J. Bound,
"Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)",
RFC 2136, April 1997.
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 85]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
[RFC3007] Wellington, B., "Secure Domain Name System (DNS) Dynamic
Update", RFC 3007, November 2000.
[RFC3022] Srisuresh, P. and K. Egevang, "Traditional IP Network
Address Translator (Traditional NAT)", RFC 3022,
January 2001.
[RFC3581] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Extension to the
Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) for Symmetric Response
Routing", RFC 3581, August 2003.
[RFC3587] Hinden, R., Deering, S., and E. Nordmark, "IPv6 Global
Unicast Address Format", RFC 3587, August 2003.
[RFC4303] Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)",
RFC 4303, December 2005.
[RFC4340] Kohler, E., Handley, M., and S. Floyd, "Datagram
Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)", RFC 4340, March 2006.
[RFC4787] Audet, F. and C. Jennings, "Network Address Translation
(NAT) Behavioral Requirements for Unicast UDP", BCP 127,
RFC 4787, January 2007.
[RFC4941] Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy
Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in
IPv6", RFC 4941, September 2007.
[RFC4960] Stewart, R., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol",
RFC 4960, September 2007.
[RFC4961] Wing, D., "Symmetric RTP / RTP Control Protocol (RTCP)",
BCP 131, RFC 4961, July 2007.
[RFC5382] Guha, S., Biswas, K., Ford, B., Sivakumar, S., and P.
Srisuresh, "NAT Behavioral Requirements for TCP", BCP 142,
RFC 5382, October 2008.
[RFC6092] Woodyatt, J., "Recommended Simple Security Capabilities in
Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) for Providing
Residential IPv6 Internet Service", RFC 6092,
January 2011.
[RFC6145] Li, X., Bao, C., and F. Baker, "IP/ICMP Translation
Algorithm", RFC 6145, April 2011.
[RFC6146] Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful
NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 86]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, April 2011.
[RFC6296] Wasserman, M. and F. Baker, "IPv6-to-IPv6 Network Prefix
Translation", RFC 6296, June 2011.
[RFC6333] Durand, A., Droms, R., Woodyatt, J., and Y. Lee, "Dual-
Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4
Exhaustion", RFC 6333, August 2011.
[RFC6619] Arkko, J., Eggert, L., and M. Townsley, "Scalable
Operation of Address Translators with Per-Interface
Bindings", RFC 6619, June 2012.
Appendix A. NAT-PMP Transition
The Port Control Protocol (PCP) is a successor to the NAT Port
Mapping Protocol, NAT-PMP [I-D.cheshire-nat-pmp], and shares similar
semantics, concepts, and packet formats. Because of this NAT-PMP and
PCP both use the same port, and use NAT-PMP and PCP's version
negotiation capabilities to determine which version to use. This
section describes how an orderly transition may be achieved.
A client supporting both NAT-PMP and PCP SHOULD send its request
using the PCP packet format. This will be received by a NAT-PMP
server or a PCP server. If received by a NAT-PMP server, the
response will be as indicated by the NAT-PMP specification
[I-D.cheshire-nat-pmp], which will cause the client to downgrade to
NAT-PMP and re-send its request in NAT-PMP format. If received by a
PCP server, the response will be as described by this document and
processing continues as expected.
A PCP server supporting both NAT-PMP and PCP can handle requests in
either format. The first octet of the packet indicates if it is NAT-
PMP (first octet zero) or PCP (first octet non-zero).
A PCP-only gateway receiving a NAT-PMP request (identified by the
first octet being zero) will interpret the request as a version
mismatch. Normal PCP processing will emit a PCP response that is
compatible with NAT-PMP, without any special handling by the PCP
server.
Appendix B. Change History
[Note to RFC Editor: Please remove this section prior to
publication.]
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 87]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
B.1. Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-28 to -29
o Removed text suggesting PCP client can remove old mappings when it
acquires a new IP address.
B.2. Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-27 to -28
o When processing MAP request or processing PEER request, Mapping
Nonce validation only applies to Basic Threat Model, and not to
THIRD_PARTY.
o A maximum payload size of 1100 keeps PCP packets below IPv6's 1280
MTU limit while still allowing some room for encapsulation. This
accomodates EAP over PANA over PCP (EAP needs 1020 octets, per
RFC3748), should PCP authentication decide to use EAP over PANA
over PCP.
o Both MAP and PEER-created mappings cannot have their lifetimes
reduced beyond normal UDP/TCP timesouts.
o Disallow re-assigning External Port to same internal host.
B.3. Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-26 to -27
o For table, reverted the NAT64 remote peer to IPv6 -- because from
the IPv6 PCP client's perspective, the remote peer really is IPv6.
o "list of PCP server addresses" changed to "longer list of PCP
server addresses"
o Clarify that unsolicited ANNOUNCE messages are sent from the PCP
server IP address and PCP port.
o "1024 bytes" changed to "1024 octets".
o Clarify that re-transmitted requests must use same Mapping Nonce
value (beginning of Section 8.1.1).
o Describe that de-synchronization that can occur (end of
Section 8.1.1).
o For devices that lose state or expect IP renumbering, Rapid
Recovery is now a MUST, with SHOULD for implementing both
multicast Announce mechanism and unicast mechanisms.
o For refreshing MAP or PEER, Mapping Nonce has to match the
previous MAP or PEER. This protects from off-path attackers
stealing MAP or shortening PEER mappings.
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 88]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
o With the Mapping Nonce change, we now allow PEER to reduce mapping
lifetime to same lifetime as implicit mapping lifetime (but not
shorter). Changes for this are in both PEER section and Security
Considerations.
o With Mapping Nonce change, can no longer delete a 'set of
mappings' (because we cannot send multiple Mapping Nonce values),
so removed text that allowed that.
o Send Mapping Update only 3 times (used to be 10 times).
o General PCP processing now requires validating Mapping Nonce, if
the opcode uses a Mapping Nonce Section 8.3.
o Moved text describing NO_RESOURCES handling from General
Processing section to MAP and PEER processing sections, as it
NO_RESOURCES processing should be done after validating Mapping
Nonce.
o Clarified SCTP NAT behavior (port numbers stay the same, causing
grief).
o added EIM definition.
o Clarified Mapping Type definitions.
o PCP Client definition simplified to no longer obliquely and
erroneously reference UPnP IGD.
o Clarified using network-byte order.
o Epoch time comparison now allows slight packet re-ordering.
o Encourage that when new address is assigned (e.g., DHCP) that PCP
as well as non-PCP mappings be cleaned up.
o Simplified formatting of retransmission, but no normative change.
o Clarified how server chooses ports and how Suggested External Port
can gently influence that decision.
o Described how PCP client can use PCP Client Address with a non-
PCP-aware inner NAT (Section 8.1.)
o Clarified 1024 octet length applies to UDP payload itself, and
that error responses copy 1024 of UDP payload.
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 89]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
o Lifetime for both MAP and PEER should not exceed the remaining IP
address lifetime of the PCP client (if known) or half the typical
IP address lifetime (if the remaining lifetime is unknown).
o Lifetime section was (mistakenly) a subsection of the MAP section,
but referenced by both MAP and PEER. It is now a top-level
section.
o Clarified that PEER cannot reduce lifetime beyond normal implicit
mapping lifetime, no matter what. This restriction prevents
malicious or accidental deletion of a quiescent connection that
was not using PCP.
o Clarified port re-use of PCP-created mappings should follow same
port re-use algorithm used by the NAT for implicitly-created
mappings (likely maximum segment lifetime).
o Other minor text changes; consult diffs.
B.4. Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-25 to -26
o Changed "internal address and port" to "internal address,
protocol, and port" in several more places.
o Improved wording of THIRD_PARTY restrictions.
o Bump version number from 1 to 2, to accommodate pre-RFC PCP client
implementations without needing a heuristic.
B.5. Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-24 to -25
o Clarified the port used by the PCP server when sending unsolicited
unicast ANNOUNCE.
o Removed parenthetical comment implying ANNOUNCE was not a normal
Opcode; it is a normal Opcode.
o Explain that non-PCP-speaking host-based and network-based
firewalls need to allow incoming connections for MAP to work.
o For race condition with PREFER_FAILURE, clarified that it is the
PCP client's responsibility to delete the mapping if the PCP
client doesn't need the mapping.
o For table, the NAT64 remote peer is IPv4 (was IPv6).
o Added a Mapping Nonce field to both MAP and PEER requests and
responses, to protect from off-path attackers spoofing the PCP
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 90]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
server's IP address.
o Security considerations: added 'PCP is secure against off-path
attackers who can spoof the PCP server's IP address', because of
the addition of the Mapping Nonce.
o Removed reference to DS-Lite from Security Considerations, as part
of the changes to THIRD_PARTY from IESG review.
o Rapid Recovery is now a SHOULD implement.
o Clarify behavior of PREFER_FAILURE with zeros in Suggested
External Port or Address fields.
o PCP server is now more robust and insistent about informing PCP
client of state changes.
o When PCP server sends Mapping Update to a specific PCP client, and
gets an update for a particular mapping, it doesn't need to send
reminders about that mapping any more.
o THIRD_PARTY is now prohibited on subscriber PCP clients.
B.6. Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-23 to -24
o Explained common questions regarding PCP's design, such as lack of
transction identifiers and its request/response semantics and
operation (Protocol Design Note (Section 6)).
o added MUST for all-zeros IPv6 and IPv4 address formats.
o included field definitions for Opcode-specific information and PCP
options under both Figure 2 and Figure 3.
o adopted retransmission mechanism from DHCPv6.
o 1024 message size limit described in PCP message restriction.
o Explained PCP server list, with example of host with IPv4 and IPv6
addresses having two PCP servers (one IPv4 PCP server for IPv4
mappings and one IPv6 PCP server for IPv6 mappings).
o mention PCP client needs to expect unsolicited PCP responses from
previous incarnations of itself (on the same host) or of this host
(using same IP address as another PCP client).
o eliminated overuse of 'packet format' when it was 'opcode format'.
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 91]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
o for IANA registries, added code points assignable via Standards
Action (previously was just Specification Required).
o Version negotiation, added explanation that retrying after 30
minutes makes the protocol self-healing if the PCP server is
upgraded.
o Version negotiation now accomodates non-contiguous version
numbers.
o Tweaked definition of VERSION field (that "1" is for this version,
but other values could of course appear in the future).
o when receiving unsolicited ANNOUNCE, PCP client now waits random
0-5 seconds.
o Removed 'interworking function' from list of terminology because
we no longer use the term in this document.
o tightened definitions of 'PCP client' and 'PCP server'.
o For 'Requested Lifetime' definitions, removed text requiring its
value be 0 for not-yet-defined opcodes.
o Removed some unnecessary text suggesting logging (is an
implementation detail).
o Added active-mode FTP as example protocol that can break with
mappings to different IP addresses.
o Clarified that if PCP request contains a Suggested External
Address, the PCP server should try to create a mapping to that
address even if other mappings already exist to a different
external address.
o Changed "internal address and port" to "internal address,
protocol, and port" in several places.
o Clarified which 96 bits are copied into error response. Clarified
that only error responses are copied verbatim from request.
o a single PCP server can control multiple NATs or multiple
firewalls (Section 4).
o Clarified that sending unsolicited multicast ANNOUNCE is not
always available on all networks.
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 92]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
o Clarified option length error example is when option length
exceeds UDP length
o Explained that an on-path attacker that can spoof packets can re-
direct traffic to a host of their choosing.
o Instead of saying IPv4-mapped addresses won't appear on the wire,
say they aren't used for mappings.
o THIRD_PARTY is useful for management device (e.g., in a network
operations center).
o Clarified PCP responses have fields updated as indicated with 'set
by the server' from field definitions.
o Disallow using MAP to the PCP ports themselves and encourage
implementations have policy control for other ports.
o Instead of 'idempotent', now says 'identical requests generate
identical response'.
o Described which Options are included when sending Mapping Update
(unsolicited responses), Section 14.2.
o Dropped [RFC2136] and [RFC3007] to informative references.
o Updated from 'should' to 'SHOULD' in Section 17.1.
o Described 'hairpin' in terminology section.
B.7. Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-22 to -23
o Instead of returning error NO_RESOURCES when requesting a MAP for
all protocols or for all ports, return UNSUPP_PROTOCOL.
o Clarify that PEER-created mappings are treated as if it was
implicit dynamic outbound mapping (Section 12.3).
o Point out that PEER-created mappings may be very short until bi-
directional traffic is seen by the PCP-managed device.
o Clairification that an existing implicit mapping (created e.g., by
TCP SYN) can become managed by a MAP request (Section 11.3.
o Clarified the ANNOUNCE Opcode is being defined in Section 14.1,
and that the length of requests (as well as responses) is zero.
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 93]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
o Clarify that ANNOUNCE has Lifetime=0 for requests and responses.
o Clarify ANNOUNCE can be sent unicast by the client (to solicit a
response), or can be multicasted (unsolicited) by the server.
o Allow ANNOUNCE to be sent unicast by the server, to accomodate
case where PCP server fails but knows the IP address of a PCP
client (e.g., web portal).
o Clarified ports used for unicast and multicast unsolicited
ANNOUNCE.
o Tweaked NO_RESOURCES handling, to just disallow *new* mappings.
o State diagram is now non-normative, because it overly simplifies
that implicit mappings become MAP (when they actually still retain
their previous behavior when the MAP expires).
o In section Section 15, clarified that PEER cannot delete or
shorten any lifetime, and that MAP can only shorten or delete
lifetimes of MAP-created mappings.
o Clarified handling of MAP when mapping already exists (4 steps).
o 2^32-1
o Randomize retry interval (1.5-2.5), and maximum retry interval is
now 1024 seconds (was 15 minutes).
o Remove MUST be 0 for Reserved field when sending error responses
for un-parseable message.
o Whenever PCP client includes Suggested IP Address (in MAP or
PEER), the PCP server should try to fulfill that request, even if
creating a mapping on that IP address means the internal host will
have mappings on different IP addresses and ports.
o For NO_RESOURCES error, the PCP client can attempt to renew and
attempt to delete mappings (as they can help shed load) -- it just
can't try to create new ones.
o Removed the overly simplistic normative text regarding honoring
Suggested External Address from Section 10 in favor of the text in
Section 11.3 which has significantly more detail.
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 94]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
B.8. Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-21 to -22
o Removed paragraph discussing multiple addresses on the same
(physical) interface; those will work with PCP.
o The FILTER Option's Prefix Length field redefined to simply be a
count of the relevant bits (rather than 0-32 for IPv4-mapped
addresses).
o Point out NO_RESOURCES attack vector in security considerations.
o Tighten up recommendation for client handling long Lifetimes, and
moved from the MAP-specific section to the General PCP Processing
section. Client should normalize to 24 hours maximum for success
and 30 minute maximum for errors.
B.9. Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-20 to -21
o To delete all mappings using THIRD_PARTY, use the all-zeros IP
address (rather than previous text which used length=0).
o added normative text for what PCP server does when it receives
all-zeros IP address in THIRD_PARTY option.
o PREFER_FAILURE allowed for use by web portal.
o clarifications to mandatory option processing.
o cleanup and wordsmithing of the THIRD_PARTY text.
B.10. Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-19 to -20
o clarify if Options are included in responses.
o clarify when External Address can be ignored by the PCP server /
PCP-controlled device
o added 'Transition from state M to state I is implementation
dependent' to state diagram
B.11. Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-18 to -19
o Described race condition with MAP containing PREFER_FAILURE and
Mapping Update.
o Added state machine (Section 16.5).
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 95]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
o Fully integrated Rapid Recovery, with a separate Opcode having its
own processing description.
o Clarified that due to Mapping Update, a single MAP or PEER request
can receive multiple responses, each updating the previous
request, and that the PCP client needs to handle MAP updates or
PEER updates accordingly.
B.12. Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-17 to -18
o Removed UNPROCESSED option. Instead, unprocessed options are
simply not included in responses.
o Updated terminology section for Implicit/Explicit and Outbound/
Inbound.
o PEER requests cannot delete or shorten the lifetime of a mapping.
o Clarified that PCP clients only retransmit mapping requests for as
long as they actually want the mapping.
o Revised Epoch time calculations and explanation.
o Renamed the announcement opcode from No-Op to ANNOUNCE.
B.13. Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-16 to -17
o suggest acquiring a mapping to the Discard port if there is a
desire to show the user their external address (Section 11.6).
o Added Restart Announcement.
o Tweaked terminology.
o Detailed how error responses are generated.
B.14. Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-15 to -16
o fixed mistake in PCP request format (had 32 bits of extraneous
fields)
o Allow MAP to request all ports (port=0) for a specific protocol
(protocol!=0), for the same reason we added support for all ports
(port=0) and all protocols (protocol=0) in -15
o corrected text on Client Processing a Response related to
receiving ADDRESS_MISMATCH error.
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 96]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
o updated Epoch text.
o Added text that MALFORMED_REQUEST is generated for MAP if Protocol
is zero but Internal Port is non-zero.
B.15. Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-14 to -15
o Softened and removed text that was normatively explaining how PEER
is implemented within a NAT.
o Allow a MAP request for protocol=0, which means "all protocols".
This can work for an IPv6 or IPv4 firewall. Its use with a NAPT
is undefined.
o combined SERVER_OVERLOADED and NO_RESOURCES into one error code,
NO_RESOURCES.
o SCTP mappings have to use same internal and suggested external
ports, and have implied PREFER_FAILURE semantics.
o Re-instated ADDRESS_MISMATCH error, which only checks the client
address (not its port).
B.16. Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-13 to -14
o Moved discussion of socket operations for PCP source address into
Implementation Considerations section.
o Integrated numerous WGLC comments.
o NPTv6 in scope.
o Re-written security considerations section. Thanks, Margaret!
o Reduced PEER4 and PEER6 Opcodes to just a single Opcode, PEER.
o Reduced MAP4 and MAP6 Opcodes to just a single Opcode, MAP.
o Rearranged the PEER packet formats to align with MAP.
o Removed discussion of the "O" bit for Options, which was
confusing. Now the text just discusses the most significant bit
of the Option code which indicates mandatory/optional, so it is
clearer the field is 8 bits.
o The THIRD_PARTY Option from an unauthorized host generates
UNSUPP_OPTION, so the PCP server doesn't disclose it knows how to
process THIRD_PARTY Option.
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 97]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
o Added table to show which fields of MAP or PEER need IPv6/IPv4
addresses for IPv4 firewall, DS-Lite, NAT64, NAT44, etc.
o Accommodate the server's Epoch going up or down, to better detect
switching to a different PCP server.
o Removed ADDRESS_MISMATCH; the server always includes its idea of
the Client's IP Address and Port, and it's up to the client to
detect a mismatch (and rectify it).
B.17. Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-12 to -13
o All addresses are 128 bits. IPv4 addresses are represented by
IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses (::FFFF/96)
o PCP request header now includes PCP client's port (in addition to
the client's IP address, which was in -12).
o new ADDRESS_MISMATCH error.
o removed PROCESSING_ERROR error, which was too similar to
MALFORMED_REQUEST.
o Tweaked text describing how PCP client deals with multiple PCP
server addresses (Section 8.1)
o clarified that when overloaded, the server can send
SERVER_OVERLOADED (and drop requests) or simply drop requests.
o Clarified how PCP client chooses MAP4 or MAP6, depending on the
presence of its own IPv6 or IPv4 interfaces (Section 10).
o compliant PCP server MUST support MAPx and PEERx, SHOULD support
ability to disable support.
o clarified that MAP-created mappings have no filtering, and PEER-
created mappings have whatever filtering and mapping behavior is
normal for that particular NAT / firewall.
o Integrated WGLC feedback (small changes to abstract, definitions,
and small edits throughout the document)
o allow new Options to be defined with a specification (rather than
standards action)
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 98]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
B.18. Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-11 to -12
o added implementation note that MAP and implicit dynamic mappings
have independent mapping lifetimes.
B.19. Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-10 to -11
o clarified what can cause CANNOT_PROVIDE_EXTERNAL error to be
generated.
B.20. Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-09 to -10
o Added External_AF field to PEER requests. Made PEER's Suggested
External IP Address and Assigned External IP Address always be 128
bits long.
B.21. Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-08 to -09
o Clarified in PEER Opcode introduction (Section 12) that they can
also create mappings.
o More clearly explained how PEER can re-create an implicit dynamic
mapping, for purposes of rebuilding state to maintain an existing
session (e.g., long-lived TCP connection to a server).
o Added Suggested External IP Address to the PEER Opcodes, to allow
more robust rebuilding of connections. Added related text to the
PEER server processing section.
o Removed text encouraging PCP server to statefully remember its
mappings from Section 16.3.1, as it didn't belong there. Text in
Security Considerations already encourages persistent storage.
o More clearly discussed how PEER is used to re-establish TCP
mapping state. Moved it to a new section, as well (it is now
Section 10.4).
o MAP errors now copy the Suggested Address (and port) fields to
Assigned IP Address (and port), to allow PCP client to distinguish
among many outstanding requests when using PREFER_FAILURE.
o Mapping theft can also be mitigated by ensuring hosts can't re-use
same IP address or port after state loss.
o the UNPROCESSED option is renumbered to 0 (zero), which ensures no
other option will be given 0 and be unable to be expressed by the
UNPROCESSED option (due to its 0 padding).
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 99]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
o created new Implementation Considerations section (Section 16)
which discusses non-normative things that might be useful to
implementers. Some new text is in here, and the Failure Scenarios
text (Section 16.3) has been moved to here.
o Tweaked wording of EDM NATs in Section 16.1 to clarify the problem
occurs both inside->outside and outside->inside.
o removed "Interference by Other Applications on Same Host" section
from security considerations.
o fixed zero/non-zero text in Section 15.
o removed duplicate text saying MAP is allowed to delete an implicit
dynamic mapping. It is still allowed to do that, but it didn't
need to be said twice in the same paragraph.
o Renamed error from UNAUTH_TARGET_ADDRESS to
UNAUTH_THIRD_PARTY_INTERNAL_ADDRESS.
o for FILTER option, removed unnecessary detail on how FILTER would
be bad for PEER, as it is only allowed for MAP anyway.
o In Security Considerations, explain that PEER can create a mapping
which makes its security considerations the same as MAP.
B.22. Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-07 to -08
o moved all MAP4-, MAP6-, and PEER-specific options into a single
section.
o discussed NAT port-overloading and its impact on MAP (new section
Section 16.1), which allowed removing the IMPLICIT_MAPPING_EXISTS
error.
o eliminated NONEXIST_PEER error (which was returned if a PEER
request was received without an implicit dynamic mapping already
being created), and adjusted PEER so that it creates an implicit
dynamic mapping.
o Removed Deployment Scenarios section (which detailed NAT64, NAT44,
Dual-Stack Lite, etc.).
o Added Client's IP Address to PCP common header. This allows
server to refuse a PCP request if there is a mismatch with the
source IP address, such as when a non-PCP-aware NAT was on the
path. This should reduce failure situations where PCP is deployed
in conjunction with a non-PCP-aware NAT. This addition was
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 100]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
consensus at IETF80.
o Changed UNSPECIFIED_ERROR to PROCESSING_ERROR. Clarified that
MALFORMED_REQUEST is for malformed requests (and not related to
failed attempts to process the request).
o Removed MISORDERED_OPTIONS. Consensus of IETF80.
o SERVER_OVERLOADED is now a common PCP error (instead of specific
to MAP).
o Tweaked PCP retransmit/retry algorithm again, to allow more
aggressive PCP discovery if an implementation wants to do that.
o Version negotiation text tweaked to soften NAT-PMP reference, and
more clearly explain exactly what UNSUPP_VERSION should return.
o PCP now uses NAT-PMP's UDP port, 5351. There are no normative
changes to NAT-PMP or PCP to allow them both to use the same port
number.
o New Appendix A to discuss NAT-PMP / PCP interworking.
o improved pseudocode to be non-blocking.
o clarified that PCP cannot delete a static mapping (i.e., a mapping
created by CLI or other non-PCP means).
o moved theft of mapping discussion from Epoch section to Security
Considerations.
B.23. Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-06 to -07
o tightened up THIRD_PARTY security discussion. Removed "highest
numbered address", and left it as simply "the CPE's IP address".
o removed UNABLE_TO_DELETE_ALL error.
o renumbered Opcodes
o renumbered some error codes
o assigned value to IMPLICIT_MAPPING_EXISTS.
o UNPROCESSED can include arbitrary number of option codes.
o Moved lifetime fields into common request/response headers
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 101]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
o We've noticed we're having to repeatedly explain to people that
the "requested port" is merely a hint, and the NAT gateway is free
to ignore it. Changed name to "suggested port" to better convey
this intention.
o Added NAT-PMP transition section
o Separated Internal Address, External Address, Remote Peer Address
definition
o Unified Mapping, Port Mapping, Port Forwarding definition
o adjusted so DHCP configuration is non-normative.
o mentioned PCP refreshes need to be sent over the same interface.
o renamed the REMOTE_PEER_FILTER option to FILTER.
o Clarified FILTER option to allow sending an ICMP error if policy
allows.
o for MAP, clarified that if the PCP client changed its IP address
and still wants to receive traffic, it needs to send a new MAP
request.
o clarified that PEER requests have to be sent from same interface
as the connection itself.
o for MAP opcode, text now requires mapping be deleted when lifetime
expires (per consensus on 8-Mar interim meeting)
o PEER Opcode: better description of remote peer's IP address,
specifically that it does not control or establish any filtering,
and explaining why it is 'from the PCP client's perspective'.
o Removed latent text allowing DMZ for 'all protocols' (protocol=0).
Which wouldn't have been legal, anyway, as protocol 0 is assigned
by IANA to HOPOPT (thanks to James Yu for catching that one).
o clarified that PCP server only listens on its internal interface.
o abandoned 'target' term and reverted to simplier 'internal' term.
B.24. Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-05 to -06
o Dual-Stack Lite: consensus was encapsulation mode. Included a
suggestion that the B4 will need to proxy PCP-to-PCP and UPnP-to-
PCP.
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 102]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
o defined THIRD_PARTY Option to work with the PEER Opcode, too.
This meant moving it to its own section, and having both MAP and
PEER Opcodes reference that common section.
o used "target" instead of "internal", in the hopes that clarifies
internal address used by PCP itself (for sending its packets)
versus the address for MAPpings.
o Options are now required to be ordered in requests, and ordering
has to be validated by the server. Intent is to ease server
processing of mandatory-to-implement options.
o Swapped Option values for the mandatory- and optional-to-process
Options, so we can have a simple lowest..highest ordering.
o added MISORDERED_OPTIONS error.
o re-ordered some error messages to cause MALFORMED_REQUEST (which
is PCP's most general error response) to be error 1, instead of
buried in the middle of the error numbers.
o clarified that, after successfully using a PCP server, that PCP
server is declared to be non-responsive after 5 failed
retransmissions.
o tightened up text (which was inaccurate) about how long general
PCP processing is to delay when receiving an error and if it
should honor Opcode-specific error lifetime. Useful for MAP
errors which have an error lifetime. (This all feels awkward to
have only some errors with a lifetime.)
o Added better discussion of multiple interfaces, including
highlighting Wi-Fi+Ethernet. Added discussion of using IPv6
Privacy Addresses and RFC1918 as source addresses for PCP
requests. This should finish the section on multi-interface
issues.
o added some text about why server might send SERVER_OVERLOADED, or
might simply discard packets.
o Dis-allow internal-port=0, which means we dis-allow using PCP as a
DMZ-like function. Instead, ports have to be mapped individually.
o Text describing server's processing of PEER is tightened up.
o Server's processing of PEER now says it is implementation-specific
if a PCP server continues to allow the mapping to exist after a
PEER message. Client's processing of PEER says that if client
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 103]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
wants mapping to continue to exist, client has to continue to send
recurring PEER messages.
B.25. Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-04 to -05
o tweaked PCP common header packet layout.
o Re-added port=0 (all ports).
o minimum size is 12 octets (missed that change in -04).
o removed Lifetime from PCP common header.
o for MAP error responses, the lifetime indicates how long the
server wants the client to avoid retrying the request.
o More clearly indicated which fields are filled by the server on
success responses and error responses.
o Removed UPnP interworking section from this document. It will
appear in [I-D.ietf-pcp-upnp-igd-interworking].
B.26. Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-03 to -04
o "Pinhole" and "PIN" changed to "mapping" and "MAP".
o Reduced from four MAP Opcodes to two. This was done by implicitly
using the address family of the PCP message itself.
o New option THIRD_PARTY, to more carefully split out the case where
a mapping is created to a different host within the home.
o Integrated a lot of editorial changes from Stuart and Francis.
o Removed nested NAT text into another document, including the IANA-
registered IP addresses for the PCP server.
o Removed suggestion (MAY) that PCP server reserve UDP when it maps
TCP. Nobody seems to need that.
o Clearly added NAT and NAPT, such as in residential NATs, as within
scope for PCP.
o HONOR_EXTERNAL_PORT renamed to PREFER_FAILURE
o Added 'Lifetime' field to the common PCP header, which replaces
the functions of the 'temporary' and 'permanent' error types of
the previous version.
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 104]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
o Allow arbitrary Options to be included in PCP response, so that
PCP server can indicate un-supported PCP Options. Satisfies PCP
Issue #19
o Reduced scope to only deal with mapping protocols that have port
numbers.
o Reduced scope to not support DMZ-style forwarding.
o Clarified version negotiation.
B.27. Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-02 to -03
o Adjusted abstract and introduction to make it clear PCP is
intended to forward ports and intended to reduce application
keepalives.
o First bit in PCP common header is set. This allows DTLS and non-
DTLS to be multiplexed on same port, should a future update to
this specification add DTLS support.
o Moved subscriber identity from common PCP section to MAP* section.
o made clearer that PCP client can reduce mapping lifetime if it
wishes.
o Added discussion of host running a server, client, or symmetric
client+server.
o Introduced PEER4 and PEER6 Opcodes.
o Removed REMOTE_PEER Option, as its function has been replaced by
the new PEER Opcodes.
o IANA assigned port 44323 to PCP.
o Removed AMBIGUOUS error code, which is no longer needed.
B.28. Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-01 to -02
o more error codes
o PCP client source port number should be random
o PCP message minimum 8 octets, maximum 1024 octets.
o tweaked a lot of text in section 7.4, "Opcode-Specific Server
Operation".
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 105]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
o opening a mapping also allows ICMP messages associated with that
mapping.
o PREFER_FAILURE value changed to the mandatory-to-process range.
o added text recommending applications that are crashing obtain
short lifetimes, to avoid consuming subscriber's port quota.
B.29. Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-00 to -01
o Significant document reorganization, primarily to split base PCP
operation from Opcode operation.
o packet format changed to move 'protocol' outside of PCP common
header and into the MAP* opcodes
o Renamed Informational Elements (IE) to Options.
o Added REMOTE_PEER (for disambiguation with dynamic ports),
REMOTE_PEER_FILTER (for simple packet filtering), and
PREFER_FAILURE (to optimize UPnP IGDv1 interworking) options.
o Is NAT or router behind B4 in scope?
o PCP option MAY be included in a request, in which case it MUST
appear in a response. It MUST NOT appear in a response if it was
not in the request.
o Result code most significant bit now indicates permanent/temporary
error
o PCP Options are split into mandatory-to-process ("P" bit), and
into Specification Required and Private Use.
o Epoch discussion simplified.
Authors' Addresses
Dan Wing (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc.
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, California 95134
USA
Email: dwing@cisco.com
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 106]
Internet-Draft Port Control Protocol (PCP) November 2012
Stuart Cheshire
Apple Inc.
1 Infinite Loop
Cupertino, California 95014
USA
Phone: +1 408 974 3207
Email: cheshire@apple.com
Mohamed Boucadair
France Telecom
Rennes, 35000
France
Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Reinaldo Penno
Cisco Systems, Inc.
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, California 95134
USA
Email: repenno@cisco.com
Paul Selkirk
Internet Systems Consortium
950 Charter Street
Redwood City, California 94063
USA
Email: pselkirk@isc.org
Wing, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 107]
