Subject: [pcp] pcp-base-26 submitted

From: "Dan Wing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 16:15:29 -0700

A few small changes in -26, which I just submitted.  They are:

   o  Changed "internal address and port" to "internal address,
      protocol, and port" in several more places.

to clear Ralph Droms' DISCUSS, 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pcp-base/ballot/#ralph-droms

   o  Improved wording of THIRD_PARTY restrictions.

to clear Stephen Farrell's DISCUSS,
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pcp-base/ballot/#stephen-farrell

   o  Bump version number from 1 to 2, to accommodate pre-RFC PCP client
      implementations without needing a heuristic.

to accommodate pre-24 implementations that exist in the wild, so that a PCP
server can differentiate between a pre-24 version from RFC versions without
needing to use a heuristic.  The version number field is 8 bits, and moving
from 1 to 2 is not a significant impact to the protocol -- the addition of
the Mapping Nonce to the PEER and MAP OpCodes (in -25) already broke 
protocol compatibility on the wire.

Other DISCUSSes are believed to have been resolved with the addition of the
Mapping Nonce in -25.  We are still contacting those IESG members to be sure
their DISCUSSes have been addressed in the -25 update.

Version -26, which was just submitted, is available at
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pcp-base-26

Side-by-side diffs between -25 and -26 are at
http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pcp-base-26.txt

Side-by-side diffs between -24 and -26 are at
http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-pcp-base-24.txt&url2=draft-iet
f-pcp-base-26.txt

-d

---

From: GangChen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 15:16:43 +0800

Not sure if that is a bug
Page 30, the table shown

                                  internal  external  remote peer
                                  --------  -------   -----------
                       NAT46   IPv4      IPv6      IPv6
                       NAT64   IPv6      IPv4      IPv4

One sentence above say

   "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. "

Aligning with the sentence, I guess the table should be corrected as

                                  internal  external  remote peer
                                  --------  -------   -----------
                       NAT46   IPv4      IPv6      IPv4
                       NAT64   IPv6      IPv4      IPv6

Is this correct?

Gang

2012/6/6, Dan Wing <[email-masked]>:
> _______________________________________________
> pcp mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp
>

---

From: "Dan Wing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 08:22:16 -0700

> -----Original Message-----
> From: GangChen [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 12:17 AM
> To: Dan Wing
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [pcp] pcp-base-26 submitted
> 

I made that change at the request of a reviewer, and you are correct -- the
change should not have been made.  The PCP client, when using the NAT64, is
not (necessarily) aware of the remote peer being IPv4 or IPv6 -- it knows
for
sure the 5-tuple seen on the PCP client itself (not on the far side of the
NAT64).  

The correct table is:

                       internal  external  remote peer
                       --------  -------   -----------
         IPv4 firewall   IPv4      IPv4      IPv4
         IPv6 firewall   IPv6      IPv6      IPv6
                 NAT44   IPv4      IPv4      IPv4
                 NAT46   IPv4      IPv6      IPv6
                 NAT64   IPv6      IPv4      IPv4
                 NPTv6   IPv6      IPv6      IPv6

which will be fixed in -27 (if we need to publish that) or during AUTH48
editing.

Thanks for catching this error!
-d

> > Mapping Nonce in -25.  We are still contacting those IESG members to
> be
> > sure